ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION

255 FRONT STREET, BEREA, OH 44017 (440) 243-4000
For profit - Limited Liability company 165 Beds CERTUS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
46/100
#401 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: January 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Aristocrat Berea Healthcare and Rehabilitation has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance with some concerns about care quality. It ranks #401 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio, placing it in the top half, and #36 out of 92 in Cuyahoga County, meaning there are only a few local facilities that perform better. The facility has been improving, as the number of issues reported decreased from 11 in 2024 to 9 in 2025, and it has a low staff turnover rate of 29%, which is better than the state average. However, there have been serious incidents, including a resident who self-harmed due to inadequate mental health care and another resident who suffered fractures after being pushed, highlighting concerns about resident safety. While there are no fines on record, the facility has been noted for cleanliness issues, such as food and dirt accumulation in shared areas, which could affect residents' well-being.

Trust Score
D
46/100
In Ohio
#401/913
Top 43%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Ohio's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
54 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (29%)

    19 points below Ohio average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Ohio average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Chain: CERTUS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 54 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Aug 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation to the State Agency as required. This affected two resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation to the State Agency as required. This affected two residents (#13 and #22) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 137.Findings Include:1.Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/20/23. Her diagnoses included cerebral infarction, congestive heart failure, type II diabetes, COPD, multiple sclerosis, dementia, hypertension, factitious disorder, hypertensive heart disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, psychosis disorder, osteoarthritis, personality disorder, hyperlipidemia, and glaucoma. Review of Resident #13 physician orders, dated 12/12/24 to 06/23/25, revealed an order for oxycodone five (5) milligrams (mg) every six hours as needed for pain.Review of Resident #13 physician orders, dated 06/23/25 to current, revealed an order for oxycodone five (5) mg every 12 hours as needed for pain.Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/30/25, revealed she was cognitively intact.2. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/24/25. Her diagnoses were antiphospholipid syndrome, insomnia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, diverticulitis, endocarditis, adjustment disorder, lupus anticoagulant syndrome, cognitive communication deficit, hypotension, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, anemia, depression, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, and convulsions. Review of Resident #22 physician orders, dated 01/25/25 to current, revealed an order for oxycodone five mg every eight hours as needed for pain.Review of Resident #22's MDS assessment, dated 07/14/25, revealed she was cognitively intact.Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #104 on 08/29/25 at 12:45 P.M. confirmed he reported to nursing management that there were reported concerns to him from other nurses, that there were things that didn't look right when it came to Resident #13 and Resident #22's narcotic logs. When asked to explain, he stated it was reported to him by LPN #110 that he felt his signature/initials were being forged by another nurse, when it came to administering oxycodone. He confirmed he reported this to nursing management. He does not know what happened with the rest of the investigation, but he stated all nurses were sent a message from the Director of Nursing (DON) that they were part of a narcotic investigation and would need to report to the facility for a drug test.Interview with DON on 08/29/25 at 1:20 P.M. confirmed they completed an investigation regarding a nurse and the administration of narcotics. DON stated they did not consider this to be an allegation of misappropriation, even though she confirmed the investigation was due to an allegation of this nurse potentially forging LPN #110 signature during administration of oxycodone. When asked why they required all the nurses who worked that area of the facility to take a drug test, if it wasn't an allegation of misappropriation or misuse of narcotics, she stated they were simply trying to collect information to see if they could prove wrongdoing.Review of the facility Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy, dated May 2025, revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. It is the facility's policy to investigate all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation or mistreatment in accordance with this policy and to ensure that all individuals who report such incidents and allegations are free from retaliation or reprisal for reporting the incident. Misappropriation of resident property was defined as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. All incidents and allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property must be reported immediately to the administrator or designee. If any form of of abuse is alleged, or serious bodily injury is identified related to any other reportable incident, the administrator or his/her designee will notify the state department of health immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2590074.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, staff interview, facility investigative document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to fully investigate an allegation of misappropriation as requi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff interview, facility investigative document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to fully investigate an allegation of misappropriation as required. This affected two residents (#13 and #22) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 137.Findings Include:1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/20/23. Her diagnoses included cerebral infarction, congestive heart failure, type II diabetes, COPD, multiple sclerosis, dementia, hypertension, factitious disorder, hypertensive heart disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, psychosis disorder, osteoarthritis, personality disorder, hyperlipidemia, and glaucoma. Review of Resident #13 physician orders, dated 12/12/24 to 06/23/25, revealed an order for oxycodone five (5) milligrams (mg) every six hours as needed for pain.Review of Resident #13 physician orders, dated 06/23/25 to current, revealed an order for oxycodone five (5) mg every 12 hours as needed for pain.Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/30/25, revealed she was cognitively intact.2. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/24/25. Her diagnoses were antiphospholipid syndrome, insomnia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, diverticulitis, endocarditis, adjustment disorder, lupus anticoagulant syndrome, cognitive communication deficit, hypotension, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, anemia, depression, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, and convulsions. Review of Resident #22 physician orders, dated 01/25/25 to current, revealed an order for oxycodone five mg every eight hours as needed for pain.Review of Resident #22's MDS assessment, dated 07/14/25, revealed she was cognitively intact.Interview with the DON on 08/29/25 at 1:20 P.M. confirmed they completed an investigation regarding a nurse and the administration of narcotics. DON also confirmed she had no written statements from this investigation. When asked why, she stated, we just did face to face interviews with all the nurses involved to help make the determination if wrongdoing happened. She also confirmed they have no interviews/statements completed with any potential residents involved as well.Review of facility Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy, dated May 2025, revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. It is the facility's policy to investigate all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation or mistreatment in accordance with this policy and to ensure that all individuals who report such incidents and allegations are free from retaliation or reprisal for reporting the incident. Misappropriation of resident property was defined as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Investigation protocol includes the person investigating the incident should generally take the following actions: interview the resident, the accused, and all witnesses. Witnesses generally include anyone who: witnessed or heard the incident and employees who worked closely with the accused employees and/or alleged victim the day of the incident. Evidence of the investigation should be documented in accordance with quality assurance protocols.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2590074.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, staff interviews, and resident interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary living environment. This had the potential to affect all 137 residents in the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and resident interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary living environment. This had the potential to affect all 137 residents in the facility.Findings Include:Observation on 08/29/25 at 8:20 A.M. revealed multiple items of food, dirt, and dust on the first floor dining room. Breakfast was being served at that time, but no residents were in the dining room. Observation during that time revealed an unidentified nursing staff person tell two residents in the hallway that the dining room was closed and they had to eat in their room.Observation on 08/29/25 from 9:05 A.M. to 9:15 A.M. revealed black soot on multiple ceiling tiles in the main laundry room. The black soot was caused by a dryer fire that happened in that room on approximately 05/29/25.Interview with the Housekeeping and Laundry Director #120 on 08/29/25 at 9:22 A.M. and 9:27 A.M. confirmed the black soot on the ceiling tiles. He confirmed the facility is waiting on the insurance claim to be approved prior to replacing all the affected items, including the new dryer, the windows, and the black ceiling tiles.Observation on 08/29/25 at approximately 2:35 P.M. revealed water damage from a water leak to two ceiling tiles above Resident #3 bed.Interview with Resident #3 on 08/29/25 at 2:35 P.M. confirmed she has asked for that ceiling tile to be replaced, but it hasn't been. When asked how long it had been that way, she did not know exactly, but stated, it's been a while.Interview with the Administrator (via e-mail) on 08/29/25 at 3:24 P.M. confirmed they need to replace the ceiling tiles listed above. He confirmed they were waiting for the insurance claim to be approved to replace the ceiling tiles in the laundry room, but then stated they would go ahead and replace them as of this day.Observation of Resident #123 room on 08/29/25 at 4:45 P.M. revealed his room had an strong odor in it. The odor appeared to be of an unkempt person who does not take showers. The odor was so strong the surveyor could not stay in the room for more than 30 seconds. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #130 and Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #140 on 08/29/25 at 4:50 P.M. confirmed Resident #123 is able to take showers/baths independently, but needs reminders to do so. But, he is someone that refuses baths/showers constantly, to the point that he has only accepted one shower in the last three months. They confirmed his room has a strong body odor to it, and it's because he refuses to take showers.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Numbers 2602108, 2599468, 2599445, and 1343060.
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse as required....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse as required. This affected one (Resident #63) of of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 143. Findings Include: Medical record review revealed Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the admission comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/24/25, revealed Resident #63 was cognitively intact, had delusions, verbal outbursts directed towards others, and wandered. Review of a nurse note dated 03/10/25 timed 6:45 A.M. revealed Resident #63 was verbally abusive, intrusive and arguing with staff and residents. Further review of the nurses notes from February 2025 to current revealed no information related to Resident #63 making an allegation of nursing staff twisting her arm. Interview on 04/03/25 at 9:05 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Regional Registered Nurse (RRN) #601, and the Administrator revealed an allegation was made recently (unable to provide exact date) that staff had twisted the arm of Resident #63 behind her back. Resident #63's statement kept changing about what happened and staff would not provide statements when requested because they did not believe anything had happened. The facility did not report the allegation of abuse made by Resident #63 to the State agency. Interview with the Administrator on 04/03/25 at 12:45 P.M. revealed they did no report the allegation made by Resident #63 because the resident retracted her allegation 10 minutes after making it. However, they did investigate the situation and made a soft file. Resident #63 had a habit of making false allegations. Review of a Root Cause Analysis/soft file investigation dated 03/31/25 revealed Resident #63 initially claimed two aides were taking her to her room and once they were in her room they twisted her arm behind her back. During a second interview, Resident #63 stated Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #406 threw her walker in the hall then twisted her right arm back refracturing her arm and then walked her down to her room. The incident was reported to staff on 03/31/25 but Resident #63 said it happened on 03/30/25 then changed her mind and said it happened on 03/29/25. An investigation was immediately begun by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). The investigation revealed that Resident #63 asked CNA #520 for some hygiene products. CNA #520 asked the resident to give her a minute and she would get them for her. Resident #63 changed her statement several times and and indicated CNA #520 was the one who twisted her arm behind her back and not CNA #406. Resident #63 retracted her allegation while talking to Unit Manager (UM) #474 and apologized to the staff for getting them in trouble. Resident #63 became impatient and accusatory if staff did not meet her needs as soon as she asked. The Root Cause Analysis investigation indicated upon many witness statements, creating a time line, review of past behavioral history, a head to toe assessment and the resident retracting her statement the interdisciplinary team (IDT) determined the allegation was a false statement because she did not receive her requested hygiene products immediately. Interviews with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #415 and CNA #420 on 04/04/25 from 12:00 P.M. through 12:55 P.M. revealed Resident #63 had a long history of making false allegations but always apologized afterwards because she wanted staff to like her. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #506 on 04/04/25 at 1:07 P.M. revealed false allegations were a daily behavior for Resident #63. Although the allegation was made over the weekend of 03/29/25 and 03/30/25, LPN #506 said she worked that weekend and nothing unusual happened. LPN #506 was unaware the allegation had been made until 04/03/25. LPN #506 said Resident #63 made apologies to the staff for getting them in trouble. Review of the facility's Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy, last revised 01/02/25, revealed all allegations of any type of abuse were to be reported to the Administrator and the State agency. If a staff member was accused or suspected of abuse they were to be removed immediately from the facility in order to protect the resident. If abuse was alleged the State agency must be notified immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made. An investigation was to be completed and the results reported to the state agency within five days. Staff training was to be completed with each allegation. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Numbers OH00164255, OH00163358, and OH00162492.
Jan 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #8 wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #8 was treated with dignity. This affected one resident (#8) of one reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 142. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of ten that indicated Resident #8 had cognitive impairment. Resident #8 required setup or clean-up assistance for eating. Review of Resident #8's physician orders dated 05/29/19 revealed an order for a no added salt diet, pureed texture with thin consistency. Review of the care plan dated 10/13/24 revealed Resident #8 had a nutritional risk related to schizoaffective disorder with interventions that included provide and serve diet as ordered. Observation on 01/09/25 at 12:10 P.M. revealed the third-floor lunch meal tray carts arrived to the unit and were placed in the dining room. Observation revealed Resident's #8, #27, and #137 were seated at the same table. Observation on 01/09/25 at 12:13 P.M. revealed Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #817 provided Resident's #27 and #137 their lunch trays. Observation revealed Resident's #27 and #137 begin to eat their lunch meal. Observation revealed Resident #8 was without a lunch meal tray. Observation on 01/09/25 at 12:14 P.M. revealed CNA #817 returned to check the lunch meal tray carts. CNA #817 was unable to located Resident #8's lunch meal tray. Interview on 01/09/25 at 12:14 P.M. with CNA #817 revealed Resident #8 did not have a lunch meal tray and the kitchen forgot to plate her lunch meal. CNA #817 revealed the kitchen was contacted to provide Resident #8 a lunch meal tray. Observation on 01/09/25 at 12:14 P.M. revealed Resident #8 yelling and screaming asking for a lunch tray. Resident #8 was observed pacing the dining room back and forth, visibly upset, crying, and asking for her food. Resident #8 was unable to be redirected. Observation on 01/09/25 at 12:33 P.M., approximately 19 minutes later, revealed Regional Culinary Director (RCD) #956 arrived to the unit with Resident #8's lunch meal tray in hand. Interview on 01/09/25 at 12:33 P.M. with CNA #817 confirmed and verified the above findings at the time of the observation. Review of the facility document titled Resident's Rights, dated December 2020, revealed the facility had a policy in place that each resident had a right to be treated at all times with courtesy, respect, and full dignity and individuality. Review of the document revealed the facility did not implement the policy. This deficiency is based on incidental findings discovered during the course of the complaint investigation.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure temperatures in the facility were at a comfortable level. This affected nineteen ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure temperatures in the facility were at a comfortable level. This affected nineteen residents (#11, #17, #38, #44, #45, #47, #49, #58, #61, #77, #82, #97, #119, #123, #124, #125, #129, #136, #140) of twenty-nine residing on the 1 East Unit located on the first floor and two residents (#30, #109) of seventeen residing on the 2 East Unit located on the second floor. The facility census was 142. Findings include: Observation on 01/08/25 from 8:00 A.M. to 8:55 A.M., during tour of the 1 East Unit, revealed a cold and chilled breeze circulating throughout the unit. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 at 8:47 A.M. with Resident #82, who resided on the 1 East Unit, revealed it was cold in her room. Resident #82 was observed lying in bed with a sheet and blanket wrapped around her. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 at 8:49 A.M. with Resident #38, who resided on the 1 East Unit, revealed she was always cold. Resident #38 revealed her bed was located up against the wall with a window. Resident #38 revealed it was cold in her room and the facility staff was aware. Resident #38 was observed wearing a robe, heavy coat, and two blankets. Observation on 01/08/25 at 8:52 A.M. located on the 1 East Unit, revealed a vent affixed to the wall outside of Resident's #124 and #129 room. Observation revealed the vent was blowing cold air. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:05 A.M. with Resident #58, who resided on the 1 East Unit, revealed it was cold in his room. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:09 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #820 revealed residents normally complained about the temperature in the building. LPN #820 revealed the temperature in the building was spotty with certain areas being warmer than other areas. Observation on 01/08/25 at 10:21 A.M., located on the 1 East Unit, revealed a ceiling vent outside of Resident's #49 and #58 room blasting cold air. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:21 A.M. with LPN #820 confirmed and verified the cold air blowing from the vent affixed to the wall outside of Resident's #124 and #129 room and the ceiling vent outside of Resident's #49 and #58 room. Interviews on 01/08/25 at 10:44 A.M. with Resident's #30 and #109, who shared rooms and resided on the 2 East Unit, revealed they had no heat in their room. Resident's #30 and #109 revealed their room was as cold as it was outside. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:44 A.M. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #833 revealed the building was freezing cold. Observation on 01/08/25 at 10:50 A.M. of Resident's #30 and #109 room revealed a cold and chilled breeze circulating throughout the room. Interview on 01/08/25 at 11:11 A.M. with Resident #17, who resided on the 1 East Unit, revealed it was freezing in her room. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 from 11:39 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. with Maintenance Director (MD) #953, during tour of the facility, revealed he routinely checked the temperatures on the different units. MD #953 revealed he attempted to maintain the building temperature with a target temperature of 74 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for the entire facility. Observation during tour of the facility, with MD #953, revealed a temperature reading of 67 degrees F located near the 1 East Nursing station (utilized by residents during medication pass), 68 degrees F located in the 1 East common area, 68 degrees F in Resident's #17 and #61 room, 66 degrees F in Resident's #38 and #82 room, 68 degrees F in Resident's #49 and #58 room, and 68 degrees F in Resident's #45 and #77 room. Observation during tour of the facility with MD #953, of Resident's #30 and #109 room, revealed a temperature reading of 68 degrees F. Interview on 01/08/25 at 12:00 P.M. with MD #953 revealed he was not aware of the concerns in the facility related to temperatures. MD #953 confirmed and verified the above findings at the time of the tour. Follow-up interview on 01/08/25 at 12:15 P.M. with MD #953 revealed the heat on the 1 East Unit was not on. Review of the facility document titled Temperature Extremes, dated March 2019, revealed the facility had a policy in place to provide comfortable and safe temperature levels. Review of the policy revealed the temperature throughout the facility should be maintained between 71 degrees and 81 degrees Fahrenheit. Review of the document revealed the facility did not implement the policy in regard to the allegation. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00161301.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure facility equipment was maintained to ensure residents received the care pertaining to their needs and preferences. This affected one resident (#17) of one resident, but had the potential to affect five additional residents (#11, #74, #86, #98, #133) residing on the 1 East Unit, who required a mechanical lift. The facility census was 142. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive heart disease. Review of the 5-Day, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was alert and oriented with cognitive impairment. Resident #17 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL). Review of Resident #17's physician orders dated 04/09/24 revealed an order for Hoyer lift (mechanical lift) for all transfers. Review of the weight summary dated 11/06/24 for Resident #17 revealed a weight of 298.4 pounds (Lbs.). Review of the weight summary revealed she was weighed by a Hoyer scale. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included morbid obesity, heart failure, and abnormal posture. Review of the physician orders for Resident #11 revealed orders dated 02/04/23 for Hoyer lift for all transfers. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #74 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Lennox-Gastaut syndrome intractable without status epilepticus, encephalopathy, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of Resident #74's physician orders dated 04/09/24 revealed an order for Hoyer lift for all transfers. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #86 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lymphedema, hypertension, and obesity. Review of Resident #86's physician orders dated 02/08/23 revealed an order for the resident to be transferred via Hoyer lift with two-person assist. 5. Review of the medical record for Resident #98 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type two diabetes, major depressive disorder, and acquired absence of left leg below knee. Review of Resident #98's physician orders dated 10/14/24 revealed an order for Hoyer lift for all transfers. 6. Review of the medical record for Resident #133 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and insomnia. Review of Resident #133's physician orders dated 04/09/24 revealed an order stating the resident may use Hoyer lift. Review of the medical records for Resident's #11, #17, #74, #86, #98, #133 revealed they all resided on the 1 East Unit that required the use of the broken Hoyer lift. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:09 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #820 revealed Resident #17 required a Hoyer lift for all transfers. LPN #820 revealed each unit in the facility had a designated Hoyer lift. LPN #820 revealed the 1 East Unit, where Resident #17 resided, had a bariatric Hoyer lift that was broken due to the legs not working properly. LPN #820 revealed Resident #17 was not happy about it due to not being able to get up and being stuck in bed. LPN #820 revealed the Hoyer lift designated for the 1 East Unit had been broken for at least, approximately, one week. LPN #820 revealed Resident #17 preferred to get out of bed, even if it was only for 15 minutes at a time. Observation and interview on 01/08/25 at 11:11 A.M. revealed Resident #17 lying in bed. Resident #17 expressed delight when the state surveyor entered her room. Resident #17 revealed the Hoyer lift was broken, and she had been stuck in bed. Resident #17 revealed the facility would not get the Hoyer lift fixed, and she had been stuck in bed for three weeks. Resident #17 revealed the Hoyer lift being broken was a big issue for her because she did not like being stuck in bed. Resident #17 revealed two staff members had attempted to manually transfer her out of bed, but the attempt was unsuccessful due to her weight. Resident #17 revealed the facility refused to purchase a new Hoyer lift. Interview on 01/08/25 at 2:41 P.M. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #921 revealed the Hoyer designated for the first-floor unit was broken, and she was unable to get residents up who required a Hoyer lift for transfers. Interview on 01/08/25 at 2:47 P.M. with CNA #808 revealed the first-floor Hoyer lift was broken. Interview on 01/08/25 at 3:24 P.M. with Maintenance Director (MD) #953 revealed he was aware of the broken Hoyer lift designated for the first-floor unit. MD #953 revealed he had a current work order in place due to the legs of the Hoyer not spreading under load. MD #953 revealed each unit had their own designated Hoyer lift. MD #953 revealed the Hoyer lift cost to repair, was unaware how long it had been broken, and was unsure of when it would be repaired. Review of the work order report dated 12/08/24 to 01/09/25, provided by the facility, revealed two work orders regarding a Hoyer lift not working and a Hoyer battery charger broken. Review of the work order report revealed no other work orders related to Hoyer lifts. Review of the undated facility document titled Mechanical Lift Policy revealed the facility had a policy in place to ensure residents received appropriate, high-quality care, and mechanical lifting devices were accessible to staff, maintained regularly, and was kept in proper working order. Review of the documents revealed the facility did not implement the policy. This deficiency is based on incidental findings discovered during the course of this complaint investigation.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environment and water temperatures were at a comfortable level. This affe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environment and water temperatures were at a comfortable level. This affected seventeen residents (#10, #20, #26, #30, #34, #41, #56, #70, #76, #78, #92, #101, #109, #118, #127, #130, #134) of seventeen residing on the 2 East Unit located on the second floor and forty-one residents (#1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, #15, #16, #19, #23, #27, #28, #31, #32, #35, #36, #46, #50, #51, #52, #53, #59, #71, #73, #75, #80, #88, #89, #96, #99, #100, #102, #112, #113, #114, #116, #121, #122, #131, #135, #137) of forty-one residing on the 3 East and 3 [NAME] Units located on the third floor. The facility census was 142. Findings include: Interview and observation on 01/08/25 at 10:05 A.M. with Resident #58 revealed his room was always dirty. Observation of Resident #58 room, shared with Resident's #49 and #123, revealed Resident #123 bed had multiple areas of food crumbs with brown and yellow substance-stained bed linen. Resident #49's bed linen was stained with brown stains with trash, food crumbs, and various pieces of paper underneath his bed. Resident #49's nightstand had an unmeasurable amount of dust with a white landline phone with red and brown stains (appeared to be blood) covering the receiver end of the phone. Observation also revealed the entire floor was covered in dirt, sticky substances with various red and brown colored stains. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 from 10:09 A.M to 10:18 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #820 revealed the housekeepers didn't clean resident's rooms on a daily basis and when the rooms were cleaned, it wasn't a good job. LPN #820 confirmed and verified the appearance of the room belonging to Resident's #49, #58, and #123. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:40 A.M. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #888 revealed the temperature of the shower water located on the 2 East Unit was ice cold. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:43 A.M with CNA #947 revealed the water in the shower room located on the 2 East Unit did not get hot. Observation on 01/08/25 at 10:54 A.M. with CNA #947 of the shower room located on the 2 East Unit revealed the shower water was turned on and was cold to the touch. The shower water ran for approximately three minutes with no changes or fluctuations. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 at 11:02 A.M. with Resident #29 revealed his room floors were dirty and needed cleaned. Resident #29 revealed he needed clean bed linen. Observation of Resident #29 room, shared with Resident #81, revealed both beds linen was stained, and the entire floor was covered in various stains and trash and/or unknown debris. Observation of Resident #81 bed revealed multiple sheets balled up underneath his bed. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 at 11:04 A.M. with LPN #855 revealed housekeepers were seen daily but she did not know the schedule of cleaning. LPN #855 revealed the housekeeping staff would leave garbage bags at the nursing stations for nurses and aides to assist with clean-up, but nursing required a lot of their time. LPN #855 confirmed and verified the observations in the room belonging to Resident's #29 and #81. Interview on 01/08/25 at 11:06 A.M. with CNA's #826 and #919 revealed the shower room located on the third floor, belonging to the 3 East and 3 [NAME] Units of the facility, shower water did not get hot. Interview on 01/08/25 at 11:11 A.M. with Resident #17, who resided on the 1 East Unit, revealed her room did not get cleaned. Interview and observation on 01/08/25 from 11:39 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. with Maintenance Director (MD) #953, during tour of the facility, revealed the water temperatures in the building were checked routinely, and as recently as 01/07/25. MD #953 revealed he was unaware of any concerns related to water temperatures in the facility shower rooms and he kept a log of his water checks. Observation during tour of the facility, with MD #953, revealed the shower room located on the 2 East Unit produced a water temperature reading of 95 degrees Fahrenheit and the shower room located on the third floor, belonging to the 3 East and 3 [NAME] Units of the facility, produced a water temperature reading of 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Follow-up interview on 01/08/25 at 12:15 P.M. with MD #953 revealed he was unable to produce a log of checked water temperatures. MD #953 revealed water temperatures were to reach between a minimum of 105 degrees Fahrenheit and a maximum of 120 degrees Fahrenheit. MD #953 confirmed and verified the above findings during the tour of the facility. Review of the facility document titled Water Temperature Testing, revised March 2023, revealed the facility had a policy in place to test the temperature of the water at least weekly to ensure temperatures were held between 105- and 120-degrees Fahrenheit. Review of the document revealed the facility did not implement the policy. Review of the facility document titled Housekeeping, dated April 2018, revealed the facility had a policy in place that the rooms and common areas were cleaned and maintained. Review of the document revealed the facility did not implement the policy. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00161301.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietary preferences were followed. This had the potential to affect all residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietary preferences were followed. This had the potential to affect all residents, except Resident #68, who the facility identified as receiving no food or drink by mouth (NPO) from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 142. Findings include: Interview on 01/08/25 at 8:47 A.M. with Resident #17 revealed she always received Kool-Aid as her drink for breakfast. Resident #17 revealed Kool-Aid was not considered a breakfast drink, and she was sick of getting it all the time. Interview on 01/08/25 at 8:53 A.M. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #808 revealed residents received Kool-Aid as a drink with the breakfast meal. CNA #808 revealed residents preferred orange juice, tea, and coffee. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:09 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #820 revealed residents often complained about receiving Kool-Aid with their breakfast meals. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:27 A.M. with LPN #855 revealed residents often received Kool-Aid with their breakfast meals. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:44 A.M. with CNA #833 revealed residents were served Kool-Aid for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. CNA #833 revealed sometimes Kool-Aid was the only drink available, and residents would get upset with their lack of options. Interview on 01/08/25 at 10:56 A.M. with LPN #866 revealed residents complained about receiving Kool-Aid with their breakfast. LPN #866 revealed she had never worked at a facility that served Kool-Aid with all of the meals. Interviews on 01/08/25 at 11:05 A.M. with CNA's #826 and #919 revealed residents often complained about receiving Kool-Aid with their breakfast meals. Observation on 01/08/25 at 11:06 A.M. of the third-floor dining room revealed a drink cart with an orange-colored liquid in a clear pitcher. Observation revealed no other drink options. Observation and interview on 01/08/25 at 11:09 A.M. with Dietary Aide (DA) #931 revealed she was pushing a black cart with a clear pitcher of orange-colored liquid and multiple clear-colored cups. Observation revealed no other options. DA #931 identified the orange-colored liquid as orange Kool-Aid. DA #931 revealed she was providing the resident Kool-Aide as their only option of drinks for the lunch meal. Interview on 01/08/25 at 3:41 P.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #911 revealed he attended food committee meetings every month. DM #911 revealed residents complained about receiving Kool-Aid with their breakfast meals. DM #911 revealed he informed his staff that serving Kool-Aid with the breakfast meal was unacceptable, and residents did not want it. DM #911 revealed there were other options of drinks to be served with the breakfast meal such as orange juice, apple juice, and cranberry juice. DM #911 confirmed and verified the above findings at the time of the interview. Review of the list of current residents and their diets provided by the facility, revealed only one resident (#68) was listed as NPO. Review of the facility document titled Resident's Rights, dated December 2020, revealed the facility had a policy in place that each resident had a right to receive services with reasonable accommodations of their individual needs and references. Review of the document revealed the facility did not implement the policy in regard to the allegation. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00161301.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #3's privacy was maintained. This affected one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #3's privacy was maintained. This affected one resident (#3) of two residents reviewed for personal privacy and confidentiality. The facility census was 145. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 09/03/24. Diagnoses included psychosis, impulse disorder, and alcohol dependence with alcohol induced dementia. Resident #3 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE], re-entered 09/10 24, was discharged to the hospital on [DATE], re-entered 10/01/24, and was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 had severely impaired cognition. Behaviors included hallucinations, delusions, physical behavioral symptoms, verbal behavioral symptoms, and other behavioral symptoms. Review of the Facility Bulletin Board, on the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) screen revealed on 09/17/24 the administrator posted that Resident #3's daughter/power of attorney (POA) asked the facility not to give out any information regarding the resident to family members except for her. Interview on 10/25/24 at 12:38 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified a large group of family members came to see Resident #3 when he was out at the hospital. They were upset and wanted to know what was going on. The family was told Resident #3 had been sent to a hospital in the area. Interview on 10/25/24 at 1:41 P.M. with Resident #3's daughter revealed family members were informed by the facility the resident was admitted to the hospital and the reason why he was admitted . This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00158996.
Aug 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident #133 related to the u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident #133 related to the use of bed side rails which assisted Resident #133 with bed mobility and getting in and out of bed. This affected one (Resident #133) of six residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #133 revealed an admission date of 03/21/17. Diagnoses included unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, schizophrenia, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the plan of care dated 07/28/22 revealed Resident #133 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to schizophrenia, muscle weakness and use of psychoactive medications. The interventions listed did not include use of side rails or grab bars to the bed. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/06/24, revealed Resident #133 had intact cognition, was independent for rolling left to right while in bed and required touch assistance for sit to stand. Review of the nurse's progress note dated 06/26/24 timed at 6:44 P.M. revealed Resident #133 was found on the floor in her room yelling for help. Staff completed a full assessment of Resident #133 and no injuries were noted. Resident #133 stated I was reaching for my bars on the bed and could not find them, and that's how I fell. Resident #133 was assisted off the floor by three staff members. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #133 indicated the bilateral bedrails helped her roll to either side and the right rail helped her get in and out of bed. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #133 required moderate assist for rolling left to right while in bed and chair/bed-to-chair transfer from bed to wheelchair. Interview on 08/01/24 at 9:31 A.M., the Regional Support Administrator (RSA) #212 revealed the facility had an outside company come in and survey the facility. After the survey they were directed to remove all the bed side rails and grab bars. RSA #212 stated the bars and side rails were removed July 2024. Interview on 07/31/24 at 1:29 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #215 revealed staff had removed the half side rails from Resident #133's bed the day before or on the same day she fell from bed. LPN #215 stated she was upset the side rails had been removed because Resident #133 used the side rails to get in and out of bed. LPN #215 verified Resident #133's care plan did not include information regarding use of side rails. Interview on 08/01/24 at 11:53 A.M. with Resident #133 revealed she had a fall because she did not have the side rails on her bed. Resident #133 stated before the side rails were removed she used to be able to get out of bed without staff, now she was dependent on staff for assistance to get in out of bed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, restlessness and agitation and ge...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, restlessness and agitation and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #135 was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision for completing his activities of daily living. Review of the care plan dated 02/12/24 revealed Resident #135 was at risk for falls related to psychoactive drug use. Review of the falls risk assessments from 06/23/24, 05/09/24, and 02/09/24 revealed Resident #135 was at moderate risk for falls. Observation on 08/01/24 at 10:18 A.M. revealed Resident #135 was sprinting laps up and down the hallway. While he was sprinting down the hallway the floor was noted to be wet and Maintenance Technician (MT) # 400 was pushing a large floor scrubbing machine down the hallway. While Resident #135 was running down the hallway he passed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #475 who was engaging in documentation of activities in the hallway on a rolling cart, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #485 documenting inside the nurse's station and Activities Workers (AW) #450 conversing in the hallway, multiple times. After completing approximately two laps up and down the hallway AW #450 began running alongside Resident #135. After running for approximately 15 feet Resident #135 fell to his knees on the floor. Interview with AW #450 on 08/01/24 at 10:24 A.M. verified the events of the observed fall. AW #450 further stated that Resident #135 believed he was part of the Olympics and ran sprints down the hallway all the time. Review of the facility fall policy dated 04/01/21 revealed It is the policy of this facility to assure proper review of resident fall risk and implementation of interventions to attempt to prevent or reduce falls/accidents and injuries related to falls. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00155557 and OH00155631. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were redirected from safety hazards affecting Resident #135 and failed to ensure bed rails were not removed prior to assessing the resident's ability to exit the bed safely without the rails affecting Resident #133. This affected two of six residents reviewed for falls. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #133 revealed an admission date of 03/21/17. Diagnoses included unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, schizophrenia, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the plan of care dated 07/28/22 revealed Resident #133 had an activities of daily living self-care performance deficit related to schizophrenia, muscle weakness and use of psychoactive medications. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/06/24, revealed Resident #133 had intact cognition. Resident #133 was independent for rolling left to right while in bed. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #133 utilized the bilateral bed rails to help her roll to either side and the right bed rail to get in and out of bed. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #133 required moderate assist for rolling left to right while in bed and chair/bed-to-chair transfer from bed to wheelchair. Review of the incident log for the past three months revealed Resident #133 had a fall on 06/26/24. Review of the nurse's progress note dated 06/26/24 timed at 6:44 P.M. revealed Resident #133 was found on the floor in her room yelling for help. Staff completed a full assessment and no injuries were reported. Resident #133 stated I was reaching for my bars on the bed and could not find them, and that's how I fell. Resident #133 was assisted off the floor by three staff members. Interview on 07/31/24 at 9:32 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 revealed management removed all the grab bars and side rails leaving residents dependent on staff for mobility and transfers. Interview on 07/31/24 at 1:29 P.M. with LPN #215 revealed she could not remember if management removed the side rails the day before or on the same day Resident #66 had her fall. LPN #215 was upset because Resident #133 used the rails to get in and out of bed and Resident #133 had no falls prior to this incident. Interview on 08/01/24 at 11:53 A.M. with Resident #133 revealed she had a fall because she did not have the rails on her bed. Resident #133 stated she used to be able to get out of bed without staff using the side rails. Resident #133 stated she was now dependent on staff for assistance.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and observations the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary resident environment. This affected 68 residents who used the showers (#1, #4, #5, #13, #17, #22, #23, #29, #31,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and observations the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary resident environment. This affected 68 residents who used the showers (#1, #4, #5, #13, #17, #22, #23, #29, #31, #32, #35, #41, #46, #48, #52, #55, #56, #70, #71, #73, #75, #87, #88, #89, #93, #96, #97, #100, #102, #104,#112, #113, #114, #129, #132, #134, #135, #10, #14, #19, #26, #34, #37, #43, #44, #45, #47, #60, #61, #63, #67, #72, #77, #79, #80, #82, #85, #98. #107, #116, #119, #122, #123, #124, #128, #130, #131, #133, and #137) and 21 residents who ate in the dining room on the third-floor secured unit (#7, #9, #20, #24, #27, #28, #30, #33, #38, #51, #57, #59, #64, #65, #78, #92, #99, #101, #110, #118, and #126). Facility census was 140. Findings include: Interview on 07/31/24 at 9:17 A.M. with Resident #32 who resided on the third-floor unit revealed the shower was nasty. Resident #32 said a resident with a colostomy bag used the shower room leaving feces all over the toilet and shower floor. Observation on 07/31/24 at 9:30 A.M. of the third-floor dining room revealed staff and residents were present. The residents were finished eating and staff had placed breakfast trays in the tray cart and were cleaning off tables. Approximately 12 gnats were observed flying in the dining room. A three-shelf cart on wheels located on the side of the dining room had an empty tray on it. Further observation of the cart revealed a large amount of milk had spilled between the tray and the cart. Interview on 07/31/24 at 9:35 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #200 verified the gnats and empty tray with spilled milk between the tray and the cart. Observation on 07/31/24 at 9:47 A.M. of Resident #129's room located on the third floor revealed the resident was lying in bed. There were at least a dozen gnats crawling on a washcloth that was hanging on the headboard and another dozen lying in a box on the floor next to the resident's bed. Interview with the resident during the observation revealed the resident was not concerned the gnats in his room. Interview on 07/31/24 at 9:53 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #211 verified the gnats in Resident #129's room. Observations on 07/31/24 at 10:19 A.M. of the first-floor shower room revealed towels and blankets lying on the floor and a toothbrush on the floor of the shower stall. Interview on 07/31/24 at 10:19 A.M. with STNA #204 and STNA #206 verified the observations and each stated they were unaware of the condition of the shower room until this observation. Observations on 07/31/24 at 4:32 P.M. of the third-floor shower room revealed the shower head and hose were hanging down because the clamp did not secure the shower head to the wall of the shower. The cover to the shower drain (a thin flat round piece of metal) was not properly secured. The screws were missing from the cover and the cover moved when touched. The shower stall had soap scum on the walls and floor. Interview during the observations with STNA #201 and the Housekeeping Manager verified the observations. Observations on 08/01/24 at 9:57 A.M. of the second-floor secured unit shower room revealed broken tile pieces, a blanket, and one shoe lying on the floor. Observation on 08/01/24 at 10:11 A.M. revealed STNA #219 walking a resident into the shower room. Interview with STNA #219 at this time revealed she had just showered another resident prior to walking the current resident into the shower room. STNA #219 verified the broken tile, blanket and shoe lying on the floor. Review of lists provided by the facility revealed Residents #1, #4, #5, #13, #17, #22, #23, #29, #31, #32, #35, #41, #46, #48, #52, #55, #56, #70, #71, #73, #75, #87, #88, #89, #93, #96, #97, #100, #102, #104,#112, #113, #114, #129, #132, #134, #135, #10, #14, #19, #26, #34, #37, #43, #44, #45, #47, #60, #61, #63, #67, #72, #77, #79, #80, #82, #85, #98. #107, #116, #119, #122, #123, #124, #128, #130, #131, #133, and #137 used the shower rooms and Residents #7, #9, #20, #24, #27, #28, #30, #33, #38, #51, #57, #59, #64, #65, #78, #92, #99, #101, #110, #118, and #126 ate their meals in the third floor secured dining room. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00156449 and OH00155557.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely assessment of residents and review of the risks and be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely assessment of residents and review of the risks and benefits of bed rails with the residents after removing all bed rails that were currently in place and being used by the residents. This affected six (Resident #7, #12, #16, #85, #131, and Resident #133) of 19 residents whose side rails and grab bars were removed. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility also failed to provide timely incontinence care to prevent incontinence dermatitis. This affected one (Resident #66) of three reviewed for incontinence care. Findings include: 1. Interview on 07/31/24 at 9:32 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 revealed management removed all the bed rails from resident beds leaving residents dependent on staff for mobility and transfers. LPN #202 stated it made it more difficult on staff because the residents were leaning and grabbing on the staff for help. Interview on 07/31/24 at 10:00 A.M. with LPN #211 revealed all the bed rails were removed from resident beds because the state agency told them their use was illegal. Interview on 08/01/24 at 9:31 A.M. with Regional Support Administrator (RSA) #212 revealed the facility had an outside company come in and survey the facility. They were directed to remove all the bed rails. RSA #212 stated all residents would be reassessed by the therapy department for bed mobility and use of bed rails. RSA #212 stated the bed rails were removed in July 2024. Interview on 08/01/24 at 10:12 A.M. with Therapy Director (TD) #213 revealed she was directed by RSA #212 to start assessing the residents for bed mobility on 07/31/24. TD #213 verified the residents were without bed rails for over a month. Interview on 08/01/24 at 10:43 A.M. with Maintenance Director #214 revealed he was told to take the grab bars and side rails off all beds around 06/20/24. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 08/24/18. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, mild, with anxiety, schizoaffective disorder, unsteadiness on feet, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, and unspecified intellectual disabilities. Review of the plan of care dated 04/14/23 revealed Resident #7 had a activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to schizoaffective disorder, intellectual disabilities, muscle weakness, and anxiety. Interventions included the use of bilateral grab bars to assist with mobility. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/13/24, revealed Resident #7 had intact cognition and was independent with rolling, sitting to standing, and lying to siting while in bed. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 required moderate assistance to roll left to right while lying in bed, and to move from lying on back to sitting on the side of the bed. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was observed with bed mobility supine (lying on back) to/from sitting to/from standing at edge of bed safely. Resident #7 stated that she previously had grab bars on her bed that she used because it made her mobility easier. Interview on 07/31/24 at 10:14 A.M. with Resident #7 revealed she did not like it when staff removed the grab bars from her bed. Resident #7 said she felt safe when the grab bars were present and the bars helped her get in and out of bed independently; without the grab bars she was dependent on staff to assist her out of bed. Interview on 07/31/24 at 4:09 P.M. with Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) #210 revealed residents could benefit from the use of siderails/grab bars that did not restrain or restrict the residents. COTA #210 stated Resident #7 utilized the grab bars to get in and out of bed independently. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 07/08/16. Diagnoses included altered mental status, unspecified, obesity, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness and a history of falls. Review of the plan of care dated 04/12/23 revealed Resident #12 had a risk for falls due to history of falls, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and psychotropic medication use. Interventions included the use of bilateral grab bars to enhance bed mobility dated 04/17/24. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/10/24, revealed Resident #12 had intact cognition and was independent with activities of daily living. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 utilized bed rails to roll, reposition, and perform bed mobility tasks. Resident #12 stated she was unable to use a trapeze because it hurt her back and was very difficult. Resident #12 stated she was able to utilize bed rails with increased independence. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was independent with activities of daily living. Interview on 08/05/24 at 9:38 A.M. with Resident #12 revealed staff took the grab bars away and she now had to rely on staff to get out of bed. Resident #12 stated she spent more time in bed now due to not having the bars. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 02/25/20. Diagnoses included vascular dementia, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, unsteadiness on feet, unspecified lack of coordination and a history of falls. Review of the plan of care dated 04/12/23 revealed Resident #16 had a risk for falls related to deconditioning and psychoactive drug use. Interventions included the use of bilateral half siderails to assist with mobility dated 12/01/23 and 04/10/24. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/07/24, revealed Resident #16 had intact cognition and was independent with activities of daily living. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was independent with activities of daily living. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 utilized bilateral bed rails to safely roll, reposition, and perform bed mobility tasks. Resident #16 reported she was spending more time in bed due to increased difficulty performing bed mobility without rails. Interview on 08/05/24 at 9:32 A.M. with Resident #16 revealed staff took her bed bars away and she needed them to pull herself up and get out of bed. Resident #16 stated she now spent more time in her bed due to not having the bars for assistance. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 12/09/22. Diagnoses included difficulty in walking, bi-polar disorder, unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, and obesity. Review of the plan of care dated 04/12/23 revealed Resident #85 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance, weakness, rhabdomyolysis, and bi-lateral lower extremity lymphedema. Interventions included the use of bilateral half siderails to assist with mobility dated 04/13/23. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #85 required moderate assistance for toilet hygiene, rolling left to right in bed and toilet transfers. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/05/24, revealed Resident #85 had intact cognition and required moderate assist for rolling left to right in bed. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #85 used bed rails for rolling and repositioning and bed mobility. Interview on 07/31/24 at 11:16 A.M. with Resident #85 revealed he could roll and reposition himself in bed with the siderails, now that the siderails had been removed he was dependent on staff for assistance. 5. Review of the medical record for Resident #131 revealed an admission date of 05/20/17. Diagnoses included unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, vascular dementia, and muscle weakness. Review of the plan of care dated 04/12/23 revealed Resident #131 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to dementia and history of traumatic brain injury. Interventions included the use of bilateral half siderails to assist with mobility dated 07/29/16 and 04/01/18. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/17/24, revealed Resident #131 had intact cognition. Resident #131 required maximum assist for rolling left to right while in bed. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #131 was dependent for rolling left to right while in bed. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #131 displayed use of a grab bar assist bilaterally for rolling and going from supine to sitting. Interview on 08/01/24 at 1:15 P.M. with Resident #131 revealed she used the side rails all the time and since they had been removed she needed help from the staff. Resident #131 stated it was very frustrating that she could no longer roll over in bed independently. 6. Review of the medical record for Resident #133 revealed an admission date of 03/21/17. Diagnoses included unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, schizophrenia, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the plan of care dated 07/28/22 revealed Resident #133 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to schizophrenia, muscle weakness and use of psychoactive medications. There was no intervention regarding use of side rails or grab bars. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/06/24, revealed Resident #133 had intact cognition. Resident #133 was independent for rolling left to right while in bed and required touch assistance for sit to stand. Review of the facility Side/Bed Rail Utilization assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #133 stated the bilateral bed rails helped her roll to either side and the right rail helped her get in and out of bed. Review of the facility Functional Abilities and Goals assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #133 required moderate assist for rolling left to right while in bed and chair/bed-to-chair transfer from bed to wheelchair. Interview on 08/01/24 at 11:53 A.M. with Resident #133 revealed she had a fall because she did not have the rails on her bed. Resident #133 stated she used to be able to get out of bed without staff when the rails were on her bed. Resident #133 stated she was now dependent on staff for assistance Interview on 08/01/24 at 1:29 A.M. with LPN #215 revealed Resident #133 had a fall the day after maintenance removed her bed rails. LPN #215 stated Resident #215 used the bed rails all the time to sit up, roll over in bed and get out of bed. 7. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed an initial admission date of 03/21/17 with readmissions on 04/23/24, 05/13/24, and 07/21/24. Diagnoses included Wernicke's encephalopathy, restlessness and agitation, and anxiety disorder. Review of the plan of care dated 07/26/24 revealed Resident #66 had potential for pressure ulcer development related to limited movement and medical status. Interventions included to provide weekly skin checks and to follow policies/procedures for prevention/treatment of skin breakdown. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/28/24, revealed Resident #66 had impaired cognition and was dependent for all activities of daily living. There was no documentation of skin alterations. Review of the facility weekly skin assessments revealed documentation dated 06/06/24, 06/10/24, 06/27/24, 07/09/24 and 08/03/24 which indicated Resident #66 had no skin alterations. Review of shower sheets for Resident #66 dated 07/24/24 through 08/03/24 revealed no documentation indicating the resident had alterations in skin. Review of incontinence care tracking documentation from 07/22/24 through 08/07/24 revealed staff provided incontinence care twice on 07/22/24, once on 07/23/24, twice on 07/24/24, and 07/25/24, once on 07/26/24, once on 07/28/24, twice on 07/30/24, once on 07/31/24, once on 08/02/24, twice on 08/04/24, once on 08/05/24, and twice on 08/06/24 and 08/07/24. Review of the July/August 2024 treatment administration records (TAR) for Resident #66 revealed an order for nystatin external powder, apply to groin and under both breast topically every day for redness dated April 2024 through 07/21/24. Further review of the TAR revealed a order for nystatin external cream 100,000 unit/gram, apply to effected areas topically every 12 hours as needed for irritation. There was no documentation on the TAR indicating staff had applied the nystatin cream since 07/21/24. Review of the plan of care dated 08/07/24 revealed Resident #66 had actual impairment to skin related to redness to perineum and sacrum. Interventions included to encourage medication and treatment regimen. The plan of care also indicated Resident #66 had bowel incontinence related to Wernicke's encephalopathy and disease process. Interventions included to check resident on routine rounds and assist with toileting as needed and provide peri-care after each incontinent episode. Observation on 08/06/24 at 9:00 A.M. revealed State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #217, STNA #218 and Unit Manager #221 providing incontinence care for Resident #66. Upon removal of Resident #66's incontinence brief a red rash covering the resident's entire peri area including the buttocks was observed. When asked about the rash, the STNAs stated Oh, she has had that rash forever. Continued observations revealed after the STNAs cleaned the entire peri-area and were getting ready to secure the brief in place the Unit Manager stated, are you going to put cream on her? The STNAs retrieved a tub of thera calazinc body shield from a basket in the resident's room and applied the barrier shield. Interview on 08/07/24 at 8:22 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she was not aware of Resident #66's rash but she would check into it. The DON verified the documentation in the incontience care tracking indicating staff only provided incontience care one or two times daily from 07/22/24 through 08/07/24. The DON said Resident #66 was also receiving care from hospice services and that the hospice staff came in and completed incontinence care during their visits. Review of hospice documentation revealed hospice services did not visit daily and when they did visit, they stayed an average of 45 minutes to 1.5 hours. Interview on 08/07/24 at 8:52 A.M. with the Wound Nurse verified the information on the TAR and stated she was not made aware of the rash until 08/06/24. The Wound Nurse stated she would put Resident #66 on the list to be assessed by the wound physician. Interview on 08/07/24 at 11:30 A.M. with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #220 revealed she was not aware of Resident #66's rash because hospice rarely communicated with her. NP #220 stated she assessed Resident #66 last week but did not observe the rash because no one informed her of the rash. NP #220 stated she would assess Resident #66 and her share findings. During a follow up interview with NP #220 on 08/07/24 at 11:53 A.M., NP#220 stated Resident #66's rash was dermatitis due to poor incontinence care. Review of the NP note dated 08/07/24 revealed Resident #66 had incontinent dermatitis to peri-area. Review of incontinent dermatitis on www.healthline.com revealed incontinent dermatitis was caused by ineffective or poor condition management which included prolonged exposure to urine and feces and inadequate cleaning of the exposed area. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00155631, OH00156449, and OH00155557.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure ice machines were maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all residents. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure ice machines were maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 140. Findings include: Observation of the facility's ice machine on 08/01/24 at 7:45 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #924 revealed the main ice machine was not working and had been out of service since 06/24/24. DM #924 explained that the facility was awaiting parts to replace the unit and the facility was temporarily using the ice machine on the second floor to meet its needs. Observation of the second floor ice machine on 08/01/24 at 9:11 A.M. with DM #924 revealed the top portion of the ice machine had a large area of slimly brown and green mold. The machine also had a noticeable musty smell when opened. DM #924 verified the condition of the ice machine at the time of observation. Review of the policy clean schedules dated 10/01/21 revealed culinary manager or designee monitors sanitation of department and assigns correction as needed.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of a facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and related facility investigation, revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of a facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and related facility investigation, review of hospital records, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #143 was free from an incident of resident-to-resident physical abuse. This affected one resident (#143) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 145. Actual harm occurred on 06/18/24 when Resident #143, who was cognitively impaired and had been independent with activities of daily living (ADLs) prior to 06/18/24, sustained a fall after being pushed by Resident #109, was sent to the local hospital emergency room for an examination on 06/18/24 and was found to have a left humerus (major upper arm bone) fracture. Although he returned to the facility on [DATE] he was sent out a second time to the hospital on [DATE] after complaints of right wrist pain developed at the facility and was diagnosed with a right wrist fracture. The facility investigation confirmed both fractures resulted from the incident on 06/18/24. As a result of the incident related fractures, Resident #143 was no longer independent with his ADLs and required staff to provide assistance to him. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #143 revealed an admission date of 08/08/13 with diagnoses including fracture of upper end of left humerus, fracture of the lower end of right radius, and dementia. Review of the 03/24/24 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #143 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven out of 15 indicating he was alert and oriented with cognition impairment. The assessment revealed the resident had inattention and disorganized thinking. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #143 was independent for activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing, bathing, eating, toileting, bed mobility and transfers. Review of the care plan, dated 03/24/24, revealed Resident #143 had a history of aggressive behaviors, including but not limited to, throwing things at staff, cursing at others, pacing, hallucinations, delusions and agitation and cognition impairment and dementia. Interventions included to provide assistance as needed, administer medications as ordered, monitor, observe, and report to physician. Review of medical record for Resident #109 revealed an admission date of 07/26/18 with diagnoses including pancytopenia, schizoaffective disorder and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the care plan, dated 08/24/18, revealed Resident #109 had a history of delusions, physically aggressive behaviors, including throwing things at staff, threatening and verbally aggressive, cursing at others, pacing, hallucinations, agitation and cognition impairment and dementia. Interventions included intervening as needed, analyze triggers and circumstances, provide assistance as needed, administering medications as ordered, monitoring, observe, and reporting to physician. Review of the 04/24/24 quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #109 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 that indicated he was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. The assessment revealed the resident had disorganized thinking. Review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #109 was independent for activities of daily living (ADLs). Further review of the medical record for both Resident #143 and Resident #109 did not reveal any documented incidents of resident-to-resident abuse prior to an incident on 06/18/24. The residents had been roommates for approximately one year. Review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), dated 06/18/24 revealed an allegation of physical abuse was reported to the State agency involving Resident #143 and Resident #109. Review of the SRI revealed Resident #143 reported, his previous roommate, Resident #109 pushed him from behind causing him to fall and was subsequently sent to the emergency room for evaluation due to also reporting hitting his head. Resident #109 was asked and denied having any physical contact with Resident #143 and subsequently given a room change. Review of the SRI revealed Resident #109 initially denied any physical contact but later admitted to pushing Resident #143 due to him getting in between him and his wife, however, Resident #109 had never been married and was actively having delusional thoughts. Review of the SRI revealed neither resident had a history of resident-to-resident physical altercations, therefore, the facility unsubstantiated the findings. As a result of the resident-to-resident physical altercation, Resident #143 suffered a fracture of the right wrist and left humerus. Review of the facility investigation and witness statement from Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #948 revealed Resident #109 stated Resident #143 had fallen on the floor. Upon entry into the shared room, Resident #143 was observed laying at the foot of the bed with blood coming from his nose and left arm out of place. Resident #143 stated the curly head guy (Resident #109) did it to him and broke his arm. Resident #109 denied having physical contact. Resident #143 was sent to the hospital via 911 and Resident #109 received a room change. Review of the progress note dated 06/18/24 at 4:50 A.M. revealed Resident #143 was sent to the hospital via 911 at 4:00 A.M. during the shift with injuries. Review of the progress note dated 06/18/24 at 5:18 A.M. revealed Resident #143 was sent to the emergency room via 911 with visible injuries to the face and upper extremities. Resident #143's guardian and physician were notified. Review of the progress note dated 06/18/24 at 12:57 P.M. revealed Resident #143 stated he was in a tussle with Resident #109 and was pushed down. Resident #143 was resting in bed, verbalized feeling safe, and verbalized no concerns with new roommate. Review of the progress note dated 06/18/24 at 1:10 P.M. revealed Resident #109 admitted to pushing previous roommate (Resident #143) claiming he fell to the ground. Resident #109 was unable to explain how or why the altercation began stating delusions related to previous high school classmates being involved. Resident #109 continued with delusional thoughts throughout conversation but verbalized being apologetic. Resident #109 assessed, emotional support provided, and scheduled to be seen by psych on the next visit. Review of the progress note dated 06/18/24 at 6:02 P.M. revealed Resident #143 returned from the emergency room after multiple tests completed. Resident #143's testing indicated fracture of left humerus with splint and/or sling to remain in place until orthopedic follow-up completed. Review of the hospital After Visit Summary dated 06/18/24 revealed Resident #143 received care instructions for a broken arm, to follow-up with the orthopedic surgeon within three to five days and to keep the arm in a splint or cast to allow it to heal or keep stable. Further review revealed Resident #143 had a displaced comminuted fracture of the left humerus. Review of the physician orders for Resident #143, dated 06/18/24, revealed orders for splint and/or sling to left upper extremity to be always worn and not removed until further instructions per orthopedics and non-weight bearing to lower upper extremity for preventative care. Review of the progress note dated 06/21/24 at 2:42 P.M. revealed Resident #143's right wrist looked a little swollen and red. Resident #143's wrist was assessed, and an order was obtained for a stat x-ray of right wrist. Resident #143 received orders for Tylenol and Norco oral tablets for pain. Review of the physician orders dated 06/21/24 revealed orders for Tylenol oral tablet to be given 500 milligrams by mouth three times a day for pain and Norco 325 milligram oral tablet to be given one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for pain for 14 days. Review of portable x-ray results dated 06/21/24 revealed Resident #143 had an acute wrist fracture and a closed displaced comminuted fracture of shaft of left humerus with nonunion. Review of the progress note dated 06/21/24 at 10:21 P.M. revealed Resident #143 was to be transported to the hospital emergency room within the next few hours for evaluation due to x-ray result showing right wrist fracture. Review of the hospital After Visit Summary dated 06/22/24 revealed Resident #143 was seen for an arm injury and instructions included to continue immobilizer to left humerus fracture, right wrist fracture was splinted and to continue to use sling for comfort, continue Norco pain medication as prescribed, use wheelchair to prevent further falls, physical and occupation therapy at the facility and follow up with orthopedics as soon as possible. Review of the progress note dated 06/22/24 at 4:37 P.M. revealed Resident #143 returned from the hospital with right wrist fracture with splint applied in emergency room following examination. Resident #143 received pain medication for bilateral upper extremities with extensive assistance of two for transfers. Review of the physician orders dated 06/23/24 revealed an order for sling to right upper extremity for elevation and comfort. Review of the physician orders dated 06/24/24 revealed orders for an orthopedic follow-up as soon as possible and an order to elevate right upper extremity when up in chair and in bed. Further review of the medical record revealed Resident #143 attended the orthopedic follow-up appointment on 06/24/24. Interview on 06/25/24 at 1:35 P.M. with Regional Clinical Support (RCS) #957 revealed Resident #109 and #143 had been roommates when Resident #109 pushed Resident #143 he fell on his hand, but it was initially reported as a tussle between the two. RCS #957 revealed Resident #109 denied it at first but after being investigated, he admitted he pushed Resident #143 due to him getting in between him and his wife, despite Resident #109 never being married. RCS #957 revealed Resident #143 was assessed and sent to the emergency room due to reporting arm pain and hitting his head. RCS #957 revealed Resident #143 sustained a broken arm and wrist and Resident #109 received a room change. RCS #957 revealed both residents had cognition impairment and had diagnoses of schizophrenia but with no known history of resident-to-resident physical altercations. Interviews were attempted on 06/25/24 at 4:11 P.M. and 07/02/24 at 2:19 P.M. and 4:23 P.M. with LPN #884 and LPN #948 who were on duty at the time of the incident, however, neither LPN returned the calls. Interview on 07/01/24 at 2:00 P.M. with the Administrator confirmed and verified the above findings and that Resident #143 had sustained fractures because of falling after being pushed (an incident of physical abuse) by Resident #109 who was responding to delusions. Interview on 07/02/24 at 10:34 A.M. with LPN #935 and at 10:46 A.M. with LPN #830 revealed they both were familiar with Resident #109 and Resident #143, and stated they were not aware of any recent incidents of physical aggression with either resident. LPN #830 said Resident #109 was known to be pleasant but did have delusions and was to be monitored for behaviors due to a history of physical aggression towards staff. Interview conducted on 07/02/24 at 2:15 P.M. with Resident #143 revealing he was alert with confusion. An observation at the time of the interview revealed Resident #143 was sitting in the dining room with his left arm in a sling and his right wrist in a splint. Resident #143 removed the splint from his right wrist and a reddish-purple looking bruise was located on the forearm. Resident #143 revealed Resident #109 tussled and grabbed him while in the room and he now had pain. At that time, Resident #143 then declined to continue to the interview. Interview on 07/02/24 at 2:30 P.M. with Resident #109 revealed he was alert sitting in his room. Observation at the time of the interview revealed Resident #109 appeared free from injury and his room was located on another floor away from Resident #143. Resident #109 revealed he did not recall the incident in question regarding Resident #143. Review of the facility document titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy revised June 2021, revealed the facility defined physical abuse as hitting, slapping, pinching, kicking, flicking with fingers or striking in any manner that was demeaning. It also included controlling behavior through corporal punishment. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number #OH00155125.
Jan 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review and review of facility incontinence policy ,the facility did not ensure timely in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review and review of facility incontinence policy ,the facility did not ensure timely incontinence care was completed for Resident #50. This affected one resident (Resident #50) out of two residents (Residents #50 and #96) reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 138. Findings included: Review of medical record for Resident #50 revealed an admission date of 10/20/23 and diagnoses included cerebral infarction, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Review of care plan dated 10/23/23 revealed Resident #50 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to schizophrenia and psychosis. Interventions included she was dependent on staff for her toileting, hygiene, dressing, and bed mobility needs. Review of admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #50 had intact cognition. She was dependent on staff assistance with toileting and rolling left and right. She was frequently incontinent of urine and bowel. Review of Bowel and Bladder Assessment- V3 dated 11/14/23 and completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #354 revealed Resident #50 was always incontinent of bladder. The assessment revealed she was to be checked and changed. Interview on 01/08/24 at 10:22 A.M. with Resident #50 revealed she was not provided incontinence care timely. She revealed she laid in urine at times all night as they did not change her. She revealed her skin became sore and irritated because of the lack of timely incontinence care. Review of task bar for Urinary Control/ Frequency per electronic record for Resident #50 dated 01/08/24 through 01/09/24 revealed there was documentation Resident #50 was incontinent on 01/08/24 at 3:27 P.M. and on 01/09/24 at 4:57 A.M. There were no other times documented that she was checked. Interview on 01/09/24 at 11:11 A.M. with Resident #50 revealed she had not been changed since 01/08/24 at 10:30 P.M. She revealed the staff today, 01/09/24 had not been in to change her yet even though it was past 11:00 A.M. During the interview Resident #50 had put her call light on to ask to be changed. Observation on 01/09/24 at 11:16 A.M. of incontinence care for Resident #50 completed by State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) #307 and STNA #345 revealed she was wearing two briefs (incontinence care product) and when the STNA's opened the incontinent products a strong urine smell was noted. Both incontinence products were heavily saturated in urine. The first incontinent product contained dried dark yellow urine and her buttocks were red. The STNA's verified the above findings and revealed it appeared Resident #50 had urinated multiple times. The STNA's revealed they had come on duty on 01/09/24 at 7:00 A.M. and were assigned Resident #50. They verified this was the first time they had provided incontinence for Resident #50 since they had been on duty. They verified it was over four hours since they had been on duty. Review of facility policy labeled, Incontinence Care dated February 2022 revealed to maintain skin integrity, prevent skin breakdown, control odor, and provide comfort and self-esteem for the resident the protocol was to be used on residents that were incontinent of bowel and/ or bladder. The protocol revealed after each episode of incontinence the perineal area would be washed. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00149662.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to offer Resident #111 an influenza and pneumococcal va...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to offer Resident #111 an influenza and pneumococcal vaccine. This affected one resident (Resident #111) out of five residents (Resident #34, #38, #69, #111, #242) reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. The facility census is 138. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #111 admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, unspecified psychosis, cerebral palsy and Parkinson's. Resident #111's Brief Interview Mental Status (cognitive assessment) revealed Resident #111 was moderately impaired for cognition. Record review completed on 01/08/24 of Resident #111's immunizations revealed Resident #111 had not been offered the influenza or pneumococcal vaccine. Interview with Director of Nursing on 01/10/24 at 2:20 P. M. revealed Resident #111's Power of Attorney was asked for consent for the Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccine on 01/09/24. The Power of Attorney agreed for the resident to obtain the vaccines. Director of Nursing verified Resident #111 was admitted on [DATE] and he had to order the influenza and pneumococcal vaccine as he did not have any in the facility. Review of facility policy Pneumococcal Vaccine last revised July 2022 revealed new admissions will be offered the education and vaccine upon admission. Review of facility policy Influenza Vaccine dated 2018 revealed residents admitted between October 1st and March 31st shall be offered the vaccine.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and observation the facility did not ensure there was sufficient linens including washcloths, towels and fit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and observation the facility did not ensure there was sufficient linens including washcloths, towels and fitted sheets available. This affected 117 residents (all residents on unit one, all residents on unit two South and West, and all residents on unit three including Residents #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #13, #15, #16, #17, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, 24, #25, #27, #28, #29, #30, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #48, #50, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #64, #65, #67, #68, #69, #72, #73, #74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #86, #87, #88, #89, #90, #93, #94, #95,#96, #97, #98, #99, #100, #101, #102, #103, #104, #107, #108, #109, #110, #111, #112, #113, #114, #115, #116, #117, #118, #119, #120, #122, #123, #125, #126, #127, #129, #130, #131, #132, #133, #134, #135, #136, #137, #242, #243, and #292). The facility census was 138. Findings included: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #50 revealed an admission date of 10/20/23 and diagnoses included cerebral infarction, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Review of care plan dated 10/23/23 revealed Resident #50 had an activities of daily living self-care performance deficit related to schizophrenia and psychosis. Interventions included she was dependent on staff for her toileting, hygiene, dressing, and bed mobility needs. Review of admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #50 had intact cognition. She was dependent on staff assistance with toileting and rolling left and right. She was frequently incontinent of urine and bowel. Observation on 01/09/24 at 11:16 A.M. of incontinence care for Resident #50 completed by State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) #307 and STNA #345 revealed they did not have washcloths to use for her care, and they were only able to use towels as washcloths. They revealed frequently they did not have sufficient linen including wash clothes. Interview on 01/09/24 at 11:20 A.M. with Resident #50 revealed staff frequently do not have sufficient linen including washcloths, towels and fitted sheets. She often revealed the fitted sheet on her bed does not fit appropriately. Observation on 01/09/24 at 11:36 A.M. of second floor [NAME] linen closet with STNA's #307 and #345 revealed there were no wash clothes in the linen closet. 2. Interview and observation on 01/08/24 at 11:10 A.M. with STNA #330 revealed the facility did not have enough linen available in the morning to perform morning care including washcloths, towels, and sheets. Observation of the first-floor linen room with STNA #330 revealed there were no wash clothes and/ or towels. There were three bags of sheets on the floor of the linen closet that STNA #330 revealed were too small for the beds. She revealed that it was 11:10 A.M. and that linens still had not been delivered to the unit. Interview on 01/09/24 at 12:50 P.M. revealed STNA #330 approached the surveyor asking what was being done about the linen as she revealed the linen for the morning care still had not been delivered for the day. Interview on 01/10/24 at 8:36 A.M. with STNA #431 revealed she usually worked on the second floor- [NAME] and South. She revealed frequently they do not have enough linen including appropriately sized fitted sheets. She revealed she was unable to make beds in a timely manner. Also, she revealed the facility did not have enough towels and washcloths. She revealed at times she had to use towels as washcloths. She revealed she had to wait for laundry to fill up the linen closets before she could do care as she does not have enough time with her work assignment to go to laundry looking for linen. Interview on 01/10/24 at 8:46 A.M. with STNA #306 revealed she usually worked on the third floor and that they ran out of linens including washcloths and towels and when asked how often she stated, a lot have to be honest it is a problem. She revealed she tried to provide hygiene care and does not have towels and washcloths to provide care so had to wait until laundry brought up the linens. She revealed working on the secured unit she was unable to leave the floor to go to laundry to retrieve linens as the residents required sufficient monitoring. She verified at times care was delayed and/ or she had to make do with what she had such as utilize towels as washcloths. Interview on 01/10/24 at 4:20 P.M. with Administrator #444 revealed they did not have a policy regarding sufficient linen. She revealed she did not have documentation of Periodic Automatic Replacement (PAR) levels (an inventory control system that tells what levels of inventory) that the facility had of linens. She revealed the laundry supervisor had been out on leave.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and even flooring for dietary staff who provide meal service for residents. This had the potential to affect 137 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and even flooring for dietary staff who provide meal service for residents. This had the potential to affect 137 out of 138 residents in the facility as Resident #72 received nothing by mouth. Findings Include: Observation on 01/09/24 at 12:38 P.M. during lunch meal service revealed the floor in the kitchen had a depressed area for equipment. Part of the area no longer contained any food preparation equipment. The food plating area butted up against the area. The person serving had to step in and out of the uneven area. Interview on 01/09/24 at 12:38 P.M. with Dietary Manager #377 verified there was uneven flooring and the person serving meals stepped in and out of the area. Interview on 01/09/24 at 12:42 P.M. Administrator #444 verified the uneven flooring. Review of a facility list of resident diets revealed Resident #72 received nothing by mouth.
Nov 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on a test tray and interview the facility failed to provide palatable meals. This had the potential to affect all residents, except Resident #84 who was identified as not receiving meals from th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a test tray and interview the facility failed to provide palatable meals. This had the potential to affect all residents, except Resident #84 who was identified as not receiving meals from the kitchen related to a nothing by mouth (NPO) status. The facility census was 133. Findings include: A test tray was requested on 11/06/23 at 12:21 P.M. The test tray left the kitchen at 12:24 P.M. and was on the floor at 12:26 P.M. The test tray was completed at 1:02 P.M. after the last resident received their meal tray. The test tray consisted of a pork chop, cheesy hashbrowns and Brussels sprouts. The pork chop was cold, dry and lacked flavor, the hashbrowns were undercooked, cold, had clumps of unmelted cheese on top, and lacked flavor, the Brussels sprouts were cold, mushy and lacked flavor. Dietary Manager (DM) #301, who was present during the test tray, did not test the food but indicated she did not need to taste the food, she knew the food was cold. DM #301 stated she was aware of resident complaints regarding food and had been trying to make improvements since she began working at the facility approximately six months ago. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00148034.
Mar 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were served meals as ordered by the ph...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were served meals as ordered by the physician. This affected two residents (#116 and #55) of five observed for meal services. The facility census was 141. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #116's medical records revealed an admission date of 07/31/14 and a diagnosis of diabetes. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #116 had intact cognition and required supervision with eating. Review of Resident #166's care plan dated 02/02/23 revealed Resident #116 had diabetes. Interventions included monitor for signs and symptoms of fluctuations in blood sugars that include confusion, slurred speech and increased thirst. Review of physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #116 was ordered a carbohydrate controlled diet. Observation on 03/20/23 at 12:58 P.M. revealed Resident #116's lunch tray consisted of baked ziti, a chocolate cupcake with no frosting, fruit juice and milk. Further observation revealed Resident #116's meal ticket indicated a carb consistency diet. Interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #200, at the time of the observation, confirmed the meal ticket indicated Resident #16 was on a carb consistency diet and further confirmed Resident #116's meal was the same as the other residents who did not have diet restrictions. STNA #200 stated she was not aware Resident #116 had a specialized diet and did not see the diet on his meal ticket prior to serving his meal. Observation on 03/21/23 at 1:22 P.M. revealed Resident #116's lunch tray consisted of a piece of baked chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy, carrots, chocolate pudding, fruit juice and milk. Interview with STNA #200, at the time of the observation, confirmed Resident #116's meal tray was again the same as the other residents without dietary restrictions. 2. Review of Resident #55's medical records revealed an admission date of 08/21/08 and a diagnosis of diabetes. Review of Resident #55's care plan dated 01/25/23 revealed Resident #55 had diabetes Interventions included monitor compliance with diet and report any issues. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 had impaired cognition and required supervision with eating. Review of physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #55 was ordered a carbohydrate controlled diet. Observation on 03/21/23 at 1:31 P.M. revealed Resident #55 was served baked chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy, carrots, chocolate pudding, fruit juice and milk. Further observation revealed Resident #55's meal ticket had indicted he was on a carb consistency diet. Interview with STNA #210, at the time of the observation, confirmed the food items Resident #55 was served and the meal ticket indicating carb consistency diet. STNA #210 stated she was not aware Resident #55 was on a carb consistency diet. Telephone interview on 03/22/23 at 11:43 A.M. with Registered Dietitian (RD) #420 revealed he was not aware residents were not receiving meals as ordered by their physicians. RD #420 stated residents who were ordered a carb consistency diet should be served foods lower in sugars. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00140873.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure meals were served according to resident preferen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure meals were served according to resident preferences. This affected one resident (#103) of five residents observed for meal service. The facility census was 141. Findings include: Review of Resident #103's medical records revealed an admission date of 11/14/20 and diagnoses including muscle weakness and gait abnormalities. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #103 had intact cognition and required supervision with eating. Interview on 03/21/23 at 1:01 P.M. with Resident #103 revealed he did not want what was served on his lunch tray; he wanted a grilled cheese sandwich instead. Observation revealed Resident #103's lunch tray consisted of baked chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy and carrots. Further observation revealed Resident #103's lunch meal ticket indicated Resident #103 disliked all chicken and turkey. Interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #200, at time of observation, revealed she was aware Resident #103 requested a grilled cheese sandwich. STNA #200 confirmed Resident #103's meal ticket indicated he disliked chicken and STNA #200 saw the meal ticket indicated a dislike of all chicken prior to serving Resident #103 the baked chicken. Telephone interview on 03/22/23 at 11:43 A.M. with Registered Dietician (RD ) #420 revealed he was not aware residents were receiving food for which they indicated they disliked. RD #420 further stated the residents' dislikes were listed on their meal tickets and staff should be reviewing the tickets prior to serving their meals. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00140873.
May 2021 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice in psychiatrist, interact with members of the community outside the facility, and choose schedules of medication and appointments with providers of his their choosing. This affected one (Resident #6) of seven residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major recurrent depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis not due to a substance or physiological condition, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder in partial remission mixed, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic migraine, and alcohol dependence uncomplicated. Review of the comprehensive assessment Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was alert, oriented, and independent in daily decision-making ability. He displayed indicators of psychosis including hallucinations and delusions, and had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others on one to three days of the assessment period. He was identified as independent to requiring supervision and set up for activities of daily living. He was independently ambulatory. Review of the care plan initiated on 05/01/20 indicated Resident #6 was moved to the secured unit due to increased behaviors. His cell phone privileges were suspended due to facility procedure and inappropriate use of a cell phone. The care plan revised on 10/15/20 indicated he would receive phone privileges at the next plan of care meeting. However, the cell phones privileges were not received until after surveyor intervention on 05/13/21. Review of the the interdisciplinary care conference summary dated 07/23/20 at 9:28 A.M. indicated the resident did not feel he had a mental health diagnoses that would require him to be placed on a secured unit; wanted to move off the secured unit; wanted more privacy; reported feeling he was isolated and depressed being on the secured unit; and he was not getting to talk with the Ombudsman or his friend/power of attorney. Interview with Resident #6 on 05/10/21 at 3:50 P.M. revealed he was not able to schedule his own appointments with physicians as he had been able to in the past, talking with his friends privately, choosing to continue treatment with his psychiatrist instead of the facility's psychiatrist, or use of the Internet; all of which had caused him anxiety. He also said Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #592 told his personal psychiatrist that Resident #6 could no longer schedule his own appointments so they canceled his appointments in the Fall of 2020. Interview with the Ombudsman on 05/10/21 at 5:25 P.M. revealed the Resident #6 explained these concerns to him several times since his placement on the secured behavioral unit. Interview with Resident #6's friend/power of attorney on 05/10/21 at 6:33 A.M. revealed he has known the resident for 40 years. He agreed Resident #6 had issues but not to the extent of needing a secured unit. The resident expressed to him that he was unhappy with his placement. He was not in agreement with the reasons for the placement or for restricting his communications, indicating it was for punishment. He said he's wanted to take the resident out for dinner etc. like he had in the past but was told the resident was not allowed to leave the facility. He said taking Resident #6's phone away was a violation of his rights to communication. Interview with LPN #597 on 05/17/21 at 1:35 P.M. revealed there were no reasons to indicate why Resident #6 remained on the second floor secured unit. LPN #597 indicated it appeared the facility management did not like him and he was placed as a punishment. They don't like his independence with making appointments but he always put the appointment on paper with date and time and who with. He preferred to see his own psychiatrist but they told him he had to see facility psychologist, but he did not want to see this doctor so they held his psychiatric appointments. Review of the policy and procedure titled secured unit (behavior) dated December 2017 indicated the criteria to reside on the secured unit was to meet at least one of the following criteria: have a mental health diagnosis or condition that would benefit from being in a smaller unit that allowed for increased staff intervention and supervision because of the physical layout, identified as unsafe to be outside the facility without supervision or a history of self-harm, aggressive behaviors that increase the potential for harm to self or others and a resident who chooses to be on the unit. This would be assessed upon admission, routinely and upon a significant change to determine if they met the criteria. The resident would be notified of the benefits of the unit and given a description of the layout. The physician would be notified for approval. A nurse may move a resident to the secure unit per nursing judgement if it was felt a resident was at risk for self-harm and other interventions were not effective. Once on the unit, they would be reviewed by the director of nursing or the interdisciplinary team to determine appropriate continued placement. Review of the undated document titled secured unit rules indicated no phones were to be used during meal times, with two 15 minute calls limit on the house phone between 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and review of facility investigation reports, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures were impl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and review of facility investigation reports, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures were implemented relative to reporting allegations of abuse to adminstration, initiating abuse allegations timely, and protecting residents from further abuse while an investigation is in process. This affected two (Residents #70 and #80) of five residents reviewed for abuse allegations. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record of Resident #70 revealed an admission date of 09/09/16. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition, had verbal behaviors, and required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, and supervision with set up help only for transfers, eating, and toilet use. Interview on 05/10/21 at 1:26 P.M. with Resident #70 revealed State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #500 had punched her in the back three times a couple of months ago. Resident #70 stated that STNA #500 had also yelled hateful things in her ear but was unable to remember what was said. Resident #70 initially stated she had not told anyone but then stated she had told Unit Manager (UM) #656 but did not remember what she had told him. During interview on 05/10/21 at 1:54 P.M. with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) were informed and revealed they were not aware of Resident #70's reported allegations. Interview on 05/11/21 at 12:02 P.M.,with the DON revealed that the nurse practitioner and the social worker talked with Resident #70 regarding the allegations. DON stated Resident #70 stated she didn't remember and that STNA #500 was nice. The DON stated they took statements and talked with STNA #500 who was working that day. Interview on 05/11/21 at 1:08 P.M. with the Administrator revealed there was only one aide in the building with that name and it was STNA #500. Administrator stated STNA #500 was working today on the second floor. The Administrator stated they didn't find the claim to be real and Resident #70 had a history of false accusations. The Administrator stated when Resident #70 was interviewed by the social worker she was all over the place and had stated STNA #500 was nice. The Administrator stated they started the investigation right when they were informed and that they could close it now or even yesterday. The Administrator stated they were waiting for the psychiatrist to see Resident #70 on Thursday. The Administrator said it depends on the allegation whether they would send the staff home or moved them off the floor during the investigation. On 05/11/21 at 2:15 P.M. the surveyor observed STNA #500 walking down hall on first floor with a portable oxygen. Interview at this time with STNA #500 revealed she was going to get a resident up and ready to go to beauty shop but normally worked on the third floor. STNA #500 stated she started he day on the third floor and was just asked to come down to office today and informed of the allegations by Resident #70. Review of the investigation dated 05/10/21 revealed handwritten statements dated 05/10/21 from Social Worker (SW) #670 regarding Resident #70's interview; interviews with Residents #24 and #123 regarding no concerns related to the allegation; and an interview with STNA #500 via phone by the Administration regarding the allegation and that she did not hit Resident #70 or any residents. Further review of the investigation revealed handwritten statements dated 05/11/21 from Residents #44, #114, and #116 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #575 revealing no observations or concerns related to the allegation. There was also a handwritten statement dated 05/11/21 from STNA #500 that she did not hit or witness any residents being hit. There was an assessment completed by the nurse practitioner dated 05/11/21 at 12:39 P.M. Interview on 05/11/21 at 4:47 P.M. with the Administrator revealed they closed the SRI and investigation that day and it was unsubstantiated. Interview on 05/12/21 at 1:25 P.M. with the Administrator revealed that when he had called STNA #500 on 05/10/21, he went on his gut and that she was a good employee to allow her to work on 05/11/21. The Administrator stated STNA #500 came in at 7:00 A.M. on 05/11/21 and went on the third floor where Resident #70 resided while the investigation was ongoing. The Administrator state they then moved her to another floor. The Administrator stated if STNA #500 was working the day the allegations were reported she would had been sent home. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation dated 2019 revealed under roman numeral IV, Protection from abuse: in the event a staff member has been accused, they will be interviewed by the executive director or designee and be immediately escorted from facility. The staff member will be suspended, by the executive director or designee, pending the outcome of the investigation of the incident. The staff member will be assumed innocent until the investigation is complete and will receive regularly scheduled pay during the suspension. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #80 revealed an admission date of 02/24/17. Diagnoses included quadriplegia and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition, had delusions and verbal behaviors, and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, and supervision one of staff for eating. Review of the progress note dated 05/07/21 at 8:41 P.M. revealed Resident #80 approached Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #504 and stated she hoped Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #566, was not here tonight because she does not want her to take care of her because CNA #566 hit her in the head with Hoyer while transferring her a couple weeks ago, and also stated other care and attitude issues. Tonight, when she passed CNA #566 in hallway, Resident #80 stated CNA #566 hit her on her right arm and stated that she lied about CNA #566. Then Resident #80 stated the CNA #566 flipped her off all the way down the hallway. Resident #80 was sobbing hysterically upon returning to the unit. LPN #504 examined resident's arm and no discoloration was noted. Much comfort given and resident quickly calmed down. The nurse practitioner was notified; the Director of Nursing (DON) was also notified, who then notified the Administrator. Interview on 05/12/21 at 12:54 P.M., with the DON revealed he was notified same day by the nurse and he then called and notified the Administrator the same day. The DON said he believed the Administrator opened a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) either on Monday, 05/10/21 or yesterday (05/11/21). The DON said he believed the incident happened on Friday, 05/07/21. Review of the SRIs on 05/12/21 revealed SRI #206034 was opened by the Administrator on 05/11/21 at 11:32 A.M. for physical abuse and was still in progress. Interview on 05/12/21 at 1:38 P.M., wth the Administrator revealed the DON called him Saturday and he thought he was being told Resident #80 was bumped with the Hoyer and thought it was more of an incident. The Administrator stated it wasn't until Monday, 05/10/21 when he had heard the full story and opened an SRI that day or yesterday on 05/11/21. The Administrator said the investigation was still ongoing but CNA #566 had walked off the job and quit on 05/07/21. Review of the facility policy title Abuse, Neglect and exploitation, dated 2019 revealed under definitions: for the purpose of this policy, immediately is to be interpreted as soon as possible, but no more than twenty-four hours after the alleged incident is discovered. For the purpose of this policy, all alleged violations must be reported immediately. Under reporting and response, letter a. OHIO- The Ohio department of health (ODH) provider and consumer services will accept reports 24 hours a day, seven days per week. To comply with immediate reporting the facility will complete sections I, II, and III of ODH's Facility Incident Report form.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents plan of care included interventions for physical i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents plan of care included interventions for physical immobility. This affected one (Resident #112) of 10 residents reviewed for restorative services. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included schizophrenia, pressure ulcer of sacral region (Stage 4), gastrostomy, dementia and blindness of one eye. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set 3.0 Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance of two people for all activities of daily living including toileting and personal hygiene. Review of this resident's MDS dated [DATE] revealed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance of two people for all activities of daily living including toileting and personal hygiene. At the time of this survey, this resident was bed bound with a urinary catheter in place and a wound vac. She did not get out of bed and was dependent on staff for repositioning and exercising. Review of this resident's Restorative Care Program Notes from therapy, dated 05/06/21, revealed she was ordered ordered to have bilateral supine exercises, active range of motion, passive range of motion, straight leg raises, hip adduction and abduction, heel slides, and dorsiflexion and plantar flexion exercises two set of 15 repetitions. Review of Resident #112's plan of care revealed this resident did not have a plan in place addressing interventions for physical immobility. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/18/21 at 3:25 P.M. revealed the facility did not really have a restorative program and he verified the resident did not have a plan of care for physical immobility. Further Review of Resident #112's plan of care dated 01/21/21 revealed the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter related to skin breakdown. Interventions for this plan of care included: position catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder and away from the entrance to the room door; ensure resident is not laying on the catheter tubing and there are no kinks in the tubing; monitor/record/report to the physician any signs/symptoms of urinary tract infection; and secure indwelling catheter tubing using anchoring device to prevent movement and urethral traction. Observation of this resident during bed bath on 05/13/21 at 2:30 P.M. revealed the secure device for the Foley was not in place. This was verified by interview with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #511.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included schizophrenia, pressure ulcer of sacra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included schizophrenia, pressure ulcer of sacral region (Stage 4), gastrostomy, dementia, and blindness of one eye. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance of two people for all activities of daily living including toileting and personal hygiene. Review of this resident's plan of care for nutrition dated 04/03/19 revealed the resident had a nutritional problem related to past medical history of acute respiratory failure, type II diabetes, constipation, hypotentions and schizophrenia. She was receiving a tube feeding at the present time that runs continuously. Review of the interventions for this plan of care included: Administer medications as ordered; Obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered; Provide and serve diet as ordered; and Monitor for intake record every meal. On 05/13/21 at 12:30 P.M. a copy of the intake records for this resident was requested. The DON said the care plan stated to monitor intake and output per the physicians order but the physician did not order it so it was not done. He verified the care plan was not updated and revised showing the intake per meal being removed. Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to revise the behavioral care plan for Resident #6 and the nutritional care plans for Residents #59 and #112. This affected one (Resident #6) of three residents reviewed for mood and behavior, and two (Residents #59 and #112) of seven residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major recurrent depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis not due to a substance or physiological condition, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder in partial remission mixed, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic migraine, and alcohol dependence uncomplicated. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was alert, oriented, and independent in daily decision-making ability. He displayed indicators of psychosis including hallucinations and delusions and had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others on one to three days of the assessment period. He was identified as independent to requiring supervision and set up for activities of daily living. He was independently ambulatory. Review of the care plan initiated on 05/01/20 revealed Resident #6 was moved to the secured unit due to increased behaviors such as intimidating roommate and staff; threatening/verbalizing that he was calling the police; had called the police and 911 on staff members; and made false accusations against staff and others. His cell phone privileges were suspended due to facility procedure and inappropriate use of a cell phone. The care plan revised on 10/15/20 indicated he would receive phone privileges at the next plan of care meeting. However, phone privileges were not initiated until after surveyor intervention on 05/13/21. The facility did not revise his behavioral care plan and corresponding interventions when it was noted his behaviors improved. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphgia, diabetes, major depression, seizures, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the annual MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 was rarely understood and was severely cognitively impaired. She required the extensive assistance one one staff for eating, had sustained weight loss, and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of the care plan revealed no evidence of revision when the resident suffered a significant unplanned weight loss. Review of Resident #59's weight history revealed on 09/21/20 she weighed 136 pounds and on 03/03/21 she weighed 115 pounds equaling a loss of 15.44%. There were no weights obtained from November 2020 until February 2021. Review of orders lacked indication weights should not be taken. No palliative or Hospice services were noted. Review of the nutrition note dated 02/03/21 at 1:37 P.M. revealed Resident #59 had a significant weight loss of 15.9% in 180 days. Her weight shifted down from her previous weight on 11/24/20 and a re-weigh was necessary to verify the accuracy of the weight loss. The dietitian recommended to re-weigh the resident and increase the nutritional supplement order, monitor intake, and weekly weights for four weeks There was no evidence in the clinical record Resident #59 was re-weighed or weighed weekly for four weeks as recommended. Resident #59 was observed at the lunch meal on 05/10/21 at 12:30 P.M. She was set up to feed herself and only took a couple of bites despite staff occasionally cueing her to eat. Resident #59 was observed at the lunch meal on 05/11/21 at 12:15 P.M. completely asleep. Interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) #800 on 05/19/21 at 12:44 P.M. revealed if there was a gap or lack of weights the resident may have refused but this would have been captured in the care plan. Review of the care plan lacked indication of refusal of weights. On 05/20/21 at 9:15 A.M. the administrator was informed of Resident #59's significant weight loss with no monitoring. Interview with RD #800 on 05/20/21 at 9:35 A.M. revealed the resident's weights were not taken due to COVID-19. Resident #59 was droplet isolation beginning in 12/07/21 for 14 days. He indicated Resident #59 was always on the list to review due to her variable intake. He reported the last dietary note by the dietetic technician was on 12/09/20 however, no dietary technician notes were found in the electronic health record. Review of the policy and procedure titled care plan development, revised in April 2018, indicated the care plan would be updated as needed with changes within seven business days of the time the change was identified or ordered.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a restorative program was implemented to further meet the need...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a restorative program was implemented to further meet the needs of its residents. This affected one (Resident #112) of 10 residents reviewed for restorative services. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included schizophrenia, pressure ulcer of sacral region (Stage 4), gastrostomy, dementia, and blindness of one eye. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance of two people for all activities of daily living including toileting and personal hygiene. At the time of this survey, this resident was bed bound with a urinary catheter in place and a wound vac. She did not get out of bed and was dependent on staff for repositioning and exercising. Review of this resident's Restorative Care Program Notes from therapy, dated 05/06/21, revealed she was ordered to have bilateral supine exercises, active range of motion, passive range of motion, straight leg raises, hip adduction and abduction, heel slides, and dorsiflexion and plantar flexion exercises two set of 15 repetitions. Interview with the Administrator on 05/18/21 at 10:30 A.M. revealed that therapy was in charge of the restorative program. Interview with the Therapy Director #720 revealed that she does refer residents after they have completed therapy to a restorative program. When asked who was in charge of implementing the program she stated that the therapy department will go to the unit and educate the state tested nursing assistants (STNAs), as well as the nurses on the type of exercised to perform on the resident for their restorative program. The nurses and the STNAs were responsible for providing this to the the residents. When asked about documentation supporting these were completed for the resident, she said she was not sure but thought the nurses and the aides documented what they did for the resident and for how long. Observation of Resident #112 on 05/13/21 from 10:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. revealed no aide in her room providing her with her exercises for the restorative program. Observation of Resident#112 on 05/17/21 from 1:30 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. revealed again no one providing this resident with her restorative exercises. Observation of Resident #112 on 05/18/21 from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. revealed the resident was not provided her restorative exercises. Review of this resident's chart revealed no physician order for restorative as ordered by therapy. Further review of Resident #112's chart revealed no documentation showing restorative care exercises were provided to the resident. Interview with STNA #511 on 05/13/21 at 1:00 P.M. revealed she was not instructed on providing exercises or provide restorative exercises to this resident. She said that they used to have a restorative aide on staff who was in charge of providing the care to the residents but they no longer have one and she did not know who was in charge of ensuring this care was provided to the resident. She stated the only real exercises she does with the resident is when she provides them with a bed bath and she asks them to lift their arms, uncross their legs etc. Interview with STNA #517 on 05/18/21 at 5:40 A.M. revealed she was not aware she was responsible for providing restorative exercises for the resident. She further said she works night shift so it could be something done by day shift. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/19/21 at 1:30 P.M. regarding restorative care revealed the facility did not really have a set restorative program for its residents.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper pericare was provided to Resident #112. This affected o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper pericare was provided to Resident #112. This affected one (Resident #112) of two residents reviewed who had urinary catheters. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included schizophrenia, pressure ulcer of sacral region (Stage 4), gastrostomy, dementia, and blindness of one eye. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance of two people for all activities of daily living including toileting and personal hygiene. The bowel and bladder section of this MDS showed the resident did have an indwelling urinary catheter to gravity drainage. On 05/19/21 at 1:15 P.M. the surveyor observed catheter care for this resident which was completed by Unit Manager (UM) #654. During the cleaning of the catheter, this nurse also cleaned her perineal area on the sides of the catheter with soap and warm water. During the cleaning of the perineal area it was observed this nurse cleaning her perineal area with an upward motion Interview with UM #654 verified on 05/19/21 at 1:46 P.M. that she did not clean the perineal area in a downward motion from front to pack to prevent the spread of germs as per protocol. Review of the undated facility policy titled Incontinent Care, staff were to clean the labia area from the front to the back.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to monitor the nutritional status for one resident (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to monitor the nutritional status for one resident (Resident #59). This affected one (Resident #59) of seven residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphgia, diabetes, major depression, seizures, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the annual comprehensive Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 was rarely understood and was severely cognitively impaired. The resident required extensive assistance with one staff member for eating and had sustained weight loss and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of Resident #59's weight history revealed on 09/21/20 she weighed 136 pounds and on 03/03/21 she weighed 115 pounds indicating a 15.44 percent (%) weight loss. There was no evidence the facility obtained the resident's weights from November 2020 until February 2021. There was no evidence of physician's orders to not obtain resident weights. The resident was not receiving Hospice services or palliative care. Review of the nutrition note dated 02/03/21 at 1:37 P.M. revealed Resident #59 received a controlled carbohydrate diet, pureed texture with nectar thick liquids. The resident's intake of meals on average was documented in this note as 25%-50%. Resident #59's current body weight was 115 pounds, which was significantly shifted down from the previous weight of 134.2 pounds (11/24/20). This note indicated the resident had a significant weight change of 15.9% over 180 days (dates were not indicated in the note). The nutrition note documented a re-weigh was necessary to verify the accuracy of the weight loss. The dietitian recommended to re-weigh the resident and increase the nutritional supplement order, monitor intake, and complete weekly weights for four weeks. There was no evidence in the clinical record that Resident #59 was re-weighed or weighed weekly for four weeks as recommended by the dietitian on 02/03/21. Resident #59 was observed at the lunch meal on 05/10/21 at 12:30 P.M. She was set up to feed herself and only took a couple of bites despite staff occasionally cueing her to eat. Resident #59 was observed at the lunch meal on 05/11/21 at 12:15 P.M. completely asleep. Interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) #800 on 05/19/21 at 12:44 P.M. revealed if there was a gap or lack of weights the resident may have refused but this would have been captured in the care plan. Review of the care plan revealed there was no indication the resident had refused being weighed. On 05/20/21 at 9:15 A.M. the administrator was informed of Resident #59's weight loss with no re-weigh or monitoring. Interview with RD #800 on 05/20/21 at 9:35 A.M. revealed the resident's weights were not obtained due to COVID-19. Resident #59 was droplet isolation beginning in 12/07/20 for 14 days. Resident #59 was always on the list for the dietitian to review due to her variable intake. RD #800 said the last dietary note by the dietetic technician was on 12/09/20, however, there was no evidence of any notes written by the dietary technician in the electronic medical record. Review of the weight policy (revised May 2021) indicated the facility would attempt to attain/maintain a resident's weight within the recommended range as appropriate in relation to their medical and physical status. Weights were to be obtained in a timely and accurate manner, documented, and responded to in an appropriate manner. Weights would be obtained by staff each month. Re-weighs should occur within a reasonable amount of time after the monthly weight for weights varying 5% or more from the previous month with the weights available for review by the dietitian/diet tech and clinical team each month. The dietitian would review and establish a re-weigh list to be completed by the next interdisciplinary team visit. The dietitian/diet tech would be notified of routine weights, significant changes in weights, insidious weight loss and other concerns related to diet an intake. Acute or chronic weight changes would be documented and recommendations will be provided the dietitian/diet tech as appropriate. The physician and resident/representative will be made aware of significant changes in weight or intake of the resident. Residents with weight loss and overall facility weight loss trends or concerns will be discussed at the routine quality of life meetings and appropriate interventions or action plans put in place and brought to he facility QA committee for further review and follow up if trends were identified.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure tube feedings were stopped while laying a resident flat to pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure tube feedings were stopped while laying a resident flat to provide care. This affected one (Resident #112) of three residents who were receiving a tube feeding. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included schizophrenia, pressure ulcer of sacral region (Stage 4), gastrostomy, dementia, and blindness of one eye. Review of this resident's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident had severe cognitive impairment. She needed extensive assistance of two people for all activities of daily living including toileting and personal hygiene. Review of this resident's physician orders dated 04/10/21 revealed the physician ordered a tube feeding of Diabetasource which was to be administered 80 cc continuously. There was also a physician's order dated 04/15/21 for the head of the resident's bed to be elevated 30 degrees or greater while receiving the tube feeding. On 05/13/21 at 10:23 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #112 receiving receiving a bed bath by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #511 and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #572. The resident at this time was laying flat in bed while the staff were providing care. Observation of the tube feeding pump showed the tube feed was infusing and not stopped per protocol. Interview with STNA #511 on 05/12/21 at 10:33 A.M. verified the tube feeding had not been stopped prior to laying the resident flat to give her a bed bath. Review of the facility policy titled Enteral Nutritional Therapy (Tube Feeding), dated 2015, revealed the resident was to be placed in semi-Fowlers position. The resident should be sitting upright 30 to 45 degrees during the feeding and for 1 to 2 hours after the feeding to decrease the risk of aspiration.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0741 (Tag F0741)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient trained staff available to supervise and effectively implement interventions for residents who have mental diso...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient trained staff available to supervise and effectively implement interventions for residents who have mental disorders and demonstrated behaviors affecting other residents at the facility. This affected two (Residents #112 and #142) of five residents reviewed for behavioral needs. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical records of Resident #142 revealed an admission date of 03/08/21 and a discharge date of 03/25/21. The resident's diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, symbolic dysfunction, and hearing loss. Review of the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment, dated 03/15/21, revealed Resident #142 was moderately cognitively impaired, highly hearing impaired and required supervision with setup help only. Review of Resident #142's care plan revealed resident had a behavior problem related to yelling/screaming out, demonstrating threatening behavior, and demonstrating repeat movements. An intervention, initiated on 03/16/21, was to intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others, approach/speak in a calm manner, divert attention, remove from situation, and take to alternative location as needed. Review of the medical records of Resident #112 revealed an initial admission date of 03/26/19 and a re-entry admission date of 03/12/21. Diagnoses include schizophrenia, dementia without behaviors, intellectual disabilities, blindness of one eye, gastrostomy, and a Stage 4 pressure ulcer. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/16/21, revealed she had severe cognitive impairment, was highly vision impaired, and required extensive assistance from two people with transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. At the time of this survey, Resident #112 was bed bound with a urinary catheter in place and a wound vac. She was also totally blind out of one eye and could only see shapes out of the other eye. Further review of Resident #142's chart on 05/19/21 and interview with facility staff revealed that Resident #142 went into Resident #112's room three times. According to the nursing progress notes for Resident #142 dated 03/24/21 at 6:00 P.M., Resident #142 entered Resident #112's room, and Resident #112 could be heard yelling Get out of here! The nurse (LPN #574) quickly ran into the room and observed Resident #142 standing at the foot of Resident #112's bed, pressing the control button of her air mattress. Resident #112 was in bed at the time. Resident #142 was redirected by this nurse and signaled him not to enter that resident's room again. Resident #142 was escorted back to his room and he then laid down in his bed. The resident was fully clothed when he entered the resident's room at this time. Resident #112's requested her door to be shut so the resident does not come in again. This nurse reassured the resident that Resident #142 would not come into her room again. Review of Resident #142's skilled evaluation notes dated 03/24/21 at 7:00 P.M. revealed there were safety concerns of Resident #142 wandering in other resident's room naked. A narrative note stated a referral was made to the hospital for extreme inappropriate behavior. Review of Resident #142's nursing note dated 03/24/21 at 11:13 P.M. revealed they heard a resident yelling out and observed Resident #142 naked, trying to get in bed with Resident #112. Resident #142 was brought to his room and one-on-one was provided. Resident #142 tried more and was becoming aggressive with staff. The physician was made aware and told staff to send Resident #142 to the hospital. Review of Resident #142's nursing note dated 03/25/21 at 5:29 P.M. revealed he was admitted to the hospital. A nursing note in Resident #112's record, written on 03/28/21 at 9:21 P.M., as a late entry note from 03/24/21, revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #601 heard the resident (#112) yelling for help. This nurse went to the resident's room to see what was going on. She saw a male resident (Resident #142) attempting to get into bed with the resident. Resident #142 was removed from the resident's room and was placed on one-on-one. The resident was assured by this nurse that the male resident would not come back into the room. No injury was noted. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #601 on 05/19/21 at 5:40 A.M. revealed she heard the resident calling out for help and yelling get out. She saw Resident #142 standing by the left side of Resident #112's bed with his hands on the bed raising his leg as if he were going to get into bed with Resident #112. Resident #142 was completely naked at that time. She further explained how Resident #142 was very confused and he was also deaf. RN #601 stated she escorted Resident #142 back to his room using body language, facial expressions, and her hands to show Resident #142 that he should not be wandering into other resident's rooms. She stated she then had an aide from another floor sit with Resident #142. She said she documented the incident in Resident #142's chart right away, and added a note in Resident #112's chart later. Interview with STNA #504 on 05/19/21 at 6:45 A.M. revealed she was working the day the incident occurred with Resident #112. She stated she did not see the first time he went into the resident's room but did redirect him to his room after the nurse found Resident #142 in Resident #112's room. She further stated she directed him to his room and helped get him completely dressed. He then laid down in his bed and went to sleep. She stated the nurse did call the other floors to obtain another aide to come down and assist with the one-on-one monitoring for Resident #142. STNA #504 said that before the second aide came down to help she saw Resident #142 go back into Resident #112's room. This time he had only his underwear on. When asked about what time this occurred, she stated about 15 minutes after the first incident. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #574 on 05/19/21 at 8:00 A.M. revealed that she did observe Resident #142 in Resident #112's room. She said he was standing at the foot of her bed messing with the control button of the air mattress. She stated she quickly escorted the resident out back into his room. She stated she signaled the resident that he was not allowed to go into that room. She also stated Resident #112 did appear to be afraid and that was why she shut her door and reassured her. Interview on 05/20/21 at 10:28 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) #563, Administrator, and Chief Nursing Operator (CNO) #175 revealed they were not aware that Resident #142 went into Resident #112's room three times, including the additional time revealed through interview with STNA #504 when Resident #142 was just wearing underwear.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify the source of Resident #6's post-traumatic stress disorder...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify the source of Resident #6's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to provide appropriate treatment and services to identify triggers and possible interventions. This affected one (Resident #6) of three residents reviewed for mood and behavior. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major recurrent depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis not due to a substance or physiological condition, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder in partial remission mixed, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic migraine, and alcohol dependence uncomplicated. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was alert, oriented, and independent in daily decision-making ability. He displayed indicators of psychosis including hallucinations and delusions and had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others on one to three days of the assessment period. He was identified as independent to requiring supervision and set up for activities of daily living. He was independently ambulatory. There was no documented evidence that the resident displayed hallucinations and delusions. The care plan revised on 01/07/21 indicated the resident required a room on the secure unit related to unaware of safety needs and to promote psycho-social well-being due to major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and bipolar disorder. Review of the progress notes and psychological notes lacked identification of Resident #6's source of PTSD. Interview with Resident #6 on 05/12/21 at 10:42 A.M. indicated his involuntary placement on the secure behavior unit impacted his PTSD but did not disclose what that entailed. Interview with Social Service Designee (SSD) #669 and the director of Social Service (SS) #670 on 05/17/21 at 11:34 A.M. revealed the resident needed the secured unit for structure with self-care and hoarding. They reported the behaviors were better now and he had improved. Both were aware of his diagnosis of PTSD but blamed the resident for not allowing them to communicate with his psychiatrist to obtain information. However, there was no documented evidence permission was discussed with the resident and had no evidence they spoke with him to determine the source of his PTSD to develop an individualized care plan with treatment modalities to reduce or eliminate triggers of his PTSD.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #6 was treated i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #6 was treated in a [NAME] that enhanced his quality of life and promoted his rights. The facility also failed to ensure residents had private unrestricted communications including the telephone, mail, and newspaper delivery. This affected all 19 (Residents #2, #6, #17, #26, #32, #50, #52, #54, #55, #59, #66, #68, #71, #76, #81, #88, #117, #124, and #133) residents residing on the second floor secured unit. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major recurrent depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis not due to a substance or physiological condition, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder in partial remission mixed, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic migraine, and alcohol dependence uncomplicated. Review of the comprehensive assessment dated (MDS 3.0) dated 02/15/21 indicated he was alert, oriented, and independent in daily decision-making ability. He displayed indicators of psychosis including hallucinations and delusions and had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others on one to three days of the assessment period. He was identified as independent to requiring supervision and set up for activities of daily living. He was independently ambulatory. Review of the care plan initiated on 05/01/20 indicated Resident #6 was moved to the secured unit due to increased behaviors such as intimidating roommate and staff; threatening/verbalizing that he was calling the police; had called the police and 911 on staff members; and made false accusations against staff and others. He had a history of hoarding newspapers. His cell phone privileges were suspended due to facility procedure and inappropriate use of a cell phone. The care plan revised on 10/15/20 indicated he would receive phone privileges at the next plan of care meeting. However, phone privileges were not initiated until surveyor intervention on 05/13/21. Review of the the interdisciplinary care conference summary dated 07/23/20 at 9:28 A.M. indicated the resident did not feel he had a mental health diagnoses that would require him to be placed on a secured unit, wanted to move off the secured unit, wanted more privacy, reported feeling he was isolated and depressed being on the secured unit and he was not getting to talk with the Ombudsman or his friend who was his power of attorney. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #592 on 05/10/21 at 10:30 A.M. revealed the newspapers in the nurse's station were Resident #6's but he would only be given a newspaper if a newspaper was returned to him. There was no evidence in the care plan related to this restriction put on him by LPN #592. Interview and observation of Resident #6 on 05/10/21 at 3:50 P.M. revealed the resident to be clean, well groomed, and dressed nicely. He stated he had a strong concern for reprisal for even speaking to the surveyor and questioned trusting giving information freely without reprisal. He reported he was placed on the secured unit against his will and for no valid reason on 05/01/20. His phone were taken away from him for no reason. The resident phone was restricted to two 15 minute calls per day but the staff would listen in to his calls. He indicated prior to his placement on the unit, he had full leave of absence privileges and could go into the community. He listed names of professionals who would concur that he should not be in a secured unit. Resident #6 did quote the Ohio Revised Codes and language indicating how his rights had been violated. He indicated the Ombudsman was involved as was his friend but he could not speak to them in private when he wanted to. He indicated he did have power of attorney papers drawn up with the friend listed but accurately indicated the power of attorney would not be active until he was not capable of making his own decisions. On 05/12/21 at 10:09 A.M. a Field Manager with the Ohio Department of Health attempted to reach Resident #6 by phone at the resident's request. The call was forwarded to a voice recording at mailbox 3421 which indicated to please leave a message. Afterward, the surveyor was at the second floor secured unit nurses station and observed the resident phone was not plugged into the wall jack, and notified the field manager. A second attempt was made to call Resident #6. The Field Manager was informed Resident #6 resided on the secured unit, the residents did not have their own phones, and the call was put through to the unit. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #577 answered the phone, called for Resident #6 down the hallway. LPN #577 did not give him the phone but instead asked the Field Manager her name, thereby revealing LPN #577 was screening Resident #6's calls. The resident phone was removed from the nurse's station and placed in the common dining room for him to receive the call from the Field Manager. During the conversation on 05/12/21 at 10:33 A.M. the Field Manager could hear multiple voices in the background loud enough to suggest they were in close proximity to Resident #6 while on the phone. The resident reported the line was being monitored and staff were always nearby. He said he could not make a call in a private area as the phone was always located at the nurses station or in the common dining room where staff were always nearby and could hear his conversation. During interview with Resident #6 on 05/12/21 at 10:42 A.M. he emphasized wanting to eliminate significant reprisal as he had experienced in the past at the facility. He said he was placed on the secured behavior unit against his will, had no online access, no cell phone access, and was limited to two 15 minute calls per day using the facility landline phone in a common area. This caused him a tremendous psychological, emotion and intellectual impact. He implied he was threatened with a 30 day discharge notice based on trumped up facts. His goal was to be moved to an unsecured unit. Further interview with Resident #6 on 05/19/21 at 1:05 P.M. revealed he had subscriptions to a religious weekly newsletter and to a local and national newspaper that he paid for, however, staff withhold his newspapers and mail and provide these to him whenever they want to give them to him. He indicated some of the mail and newspapers were time sensitive, as well as having items that could be read at any time. During interview with the Ombudsman on 05/10/21 at 5:25 P.M. he reported the resident phone on the secured unit now had a two 15 minute calls rule and was that put in place because of Resident #6. The Ombudsman was not sure but indicated Resident #6 had been accused of taking the resident phone but it was found in the nurses station. The Ombudsman indicated he tried calling in to the unit on the resident line but got disconnected. He was able to get through on that line about once in every 50 calls he's made to the unit. He questioned if the phone was disconnected when it was not in use. The Ombudsman reported the facility was over the top unreasonable related to Resident #6 and violations of resident rights. Interview with Ombudsman again on 05/17/21 at 1:05 P.M. revealed he had had conversations with the director of Social Service (SS) #670 but got nowhere related to protecting Resident #6's rights or moving off of the secured unit and was told it was Resident #6's perception of restriction. On 05/10/21 at 6:33 A.M. interview with Resident #6's longtime friend/power of attorney who remains in close contact with the resident, revealed Resident #6 expressed to him that he was unhappy with his placement, and the facility was restricting his communications, indicating it was for punishment. He reported he's wanted to take Resident #6 out for dinner as he had in the past but was told the resident was not allowed to leave the facility. He said taking Resident #6's phone away was a violation of his rights to communication. Interview with LPN #597 on 05/17/21 at 1:35 P.M. revealed there were no reasons to indicate why Resident #6 remained on the second floor secured unit. LPN #597 said it appeared the facility management did not like him and he was placed as a punishment. The facility did not like his independence with making appointments but he always put the appointment on paper with date and time and who with. He preferred to see his own psychiatrist but they told him he had to see facility psychologist but he did not want to see this psychologist, so they held his psychiatric appointments. They singled him out for everything. Resident #6 was very smart and will stand up for himself; he will let you know the rules or the specific code the rule came from. She cited a couple of examples of the nurse LPN #592 being cruel to him. She reported one evening she came on her shift and a resident wanted to use the phone, which she nor the STNA could find; however the phone was found later in the staff bathroom trash can. The STNA took a picture of it and sent it to the day shift nurse and aide asking why it was in the trash. LPN #597 said the texts were shared with her by the STNA. The text indicated the phone was hidden from Resident #6 because he monopolized the phone. She said he only called a friend and the ombudsman which was his right. Then she reviewed the documentation and the resident was blamed. She said this was fraudulent documentation. She reported this to the former director of nursing. The two 15 minute calls were initiated only a few months ago and they listen in earshot of the conversation and somehow know who he was speaking with and what was said. LPN #597 admitted Resident #6 perseverated and was persistent, but said it was not without cause. LPN #597 added that the facility will withhold his newspapers and his mail, and withhold the use of the phone, cigarette breaks and snacks as punishment for several residents. They call Resident #6 by his last name even though he's requested to be called by his first name. LPN #597 discussed the incident that was documented inaccurately as it occurred. Resident #6's roommate at the time was very manic and accused Resident #6 of liking young boys and was rifling through his papers. Resident #6 verbally defended himself, however, it was documented that Resident #6 made the allegations and was moved to another room. LPN #597 also reported concerns with his medications not being given on time. Some nurses try to give him his high dose antidepressant medication for insomnia around 8:00 P.M. She said this resident preferred to watch the nightly news and wanted the medication then, but when he requested it later it was marked as a refusal. This was for staff convenience. LPN #597 said Resident #6 perseverated and was persistent, but also said it was not without cause. There was no documented evidence or interviews with staff that indictated Resident #6 had suicidal ideations or current behaviors that warranted his continued stay on this secured behavior unit. Review of the policy and procedure titled secured unit (behavior) dated December 2017 indicated the criteria to reside on the secured unit was to meet at least one of the following criteria: have a mental health diagnosis or condition that would benefit from being in a smaller unit that allowed for increased staff intervention and supervision because of the physical layout; identified as unsafe to be outside the facility without supervision or a history of self-harm; aggressive behaviors that increase the potential for harm to self or others; and a resident who chooses to be on the unit. This would be assessed upon admission, routinely, and upon a significant change to determine if they met the criteria. The resident would be notified of the benefits of the unit and given a description of the layout. The physician would be notified for approval. A nurse may move a resident to the secure unit per nursing judgement if it was felt a resident was at risk for self-harm and other interventions were not effective. Once on the unit, they would be reviewed by the director of nursing or the interdisciplinary team to determine appropriate continued placement. Review of the undated document titled secured unit rules indicated no phones were to be used during meal times, and there was a limit of two 15 minute calls on the house phone between 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. There was no rules related to restricting mail or newspapers.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had private unrestr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had private unrestricted communications including telephone use. This affected all 19 (Residents #2, #6, #17, #26, #32, #50, #52, #54, #55, #59, #66, #68, #71, #76, #81, #88, #117, #124, and #133) residents residing on the second floor secured unit. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major recurrent depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis not due to a substance or physiological condition, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder in partial remission mixed, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic migraine, and alcohol dependence uncomplicated. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was alert, oriented, and independent in daily decision-making ability. He displayed indicators of psychosis including hallucinations and delusions and had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others on one to three days of the assessment period. He was identified as independent to requiring supervision and set up for activities of daily living. He was independently ambulatory. Review of the care plan initiated on 05/01/20 revealed Resident #6 was moved to the secured unit due to increased behaviors such as intimidating roommate and staff; threatening/verbalizing that he was calling the police; had called the police and 911 on staff members; and made false accusations against staff and others. His cell phone privileges were suspended due to facility procedure and inappropriate use of a cell phone. The care plan revised on 10/15/20 indicated he would receive phone privileges at the next plan of care meeting. However, phone privileges were not initiated until after surveyor intervention on 05/13/21. Review of the progress notes revealed they lacked evidence that he had called the police or 911 on staff members. There were multiple progress notes related to Resident #6's hoarding of food and items in his room as well as refusal to bathe. The progress note dated 05/01/20 at 3:35 P.M. indicated social service spoke with the power of attorney to notify him of moving the resident to the secured unit due to recent behaviors. The note indicated social service had the resident's two cell phones at that time. The resident was not to use the phone due to being accusatory towards staff and verbalizing calling 911 and the police. Social service was to follow and assist as needed. On 05/06/20 at 1:20 P.M. a social service note indicated the power of attorney wanted to know how the resident was doing, and was informed that Resident #6 was initially upset with the move to the secured unit but had since calmed down and was compliant with medication and had no incident. The power of attorney asked about Resident #6 having access to the phone and was informed he would not have access to his cell phones because they were not permitted on the secured unit, and if the power of attorney needed to call the resident, he was to call the unit and indicate the power of attorney was calling to speak with him. It was noted that Resident #6 had no phone privileges at that time, and was only permitted to talk on the phone when the power of attorney called to speak to him. Review of the the interdisciplinary care conference summary dated 07/23/20 at 9:28 A.M. revealed the resident did not feel he had a mental health diagnoses that would require him to be placed on a secured unit; wanted to move off the secured unit; wanted more privacy; reported feeling he was isolated and depressed being on the secured unit; and he was not getting to talk with the Ombudsman or power of attorney. Interview and observation of Resident #6 on 05/10/21 at 3:50 P.M. revealed the resident was clean, well groomed, and dressed nicely. He stated he had a strong concern for reprisal for even speaking to the surveyor and questioned trusting giving information freely without reprisal. He reported he was placed on the secured unit against his will and for no valid reason on 05/01/20. His phones were taken away from him for no reason. The resident phone use was restricted to two 15 minute calls per day using the facility landline phone, however, the staff would listen in to his calls. He indicated prior to his placement on the unit, he had full leave of absence privileges and could go into the community. He listed names of professionals who would concur that he should not be in a secured unit. Resident #6 did quote the Ohio Revised Codes and language indicating how his rights had been violated. He indicated the Ombudsman was involved as well as his friend (power of attorney) but he could not speak to them in private when he wanted to. He indicated he did have power of attorney papers drawn up with the friend listed but accurately indicated the power of attorney would not be active until he was not capable of making his own decisions. On 05/12/21 at 10:09 A.M. a Field Manager with the Ohio Department of Health attempted to reach Resident #6 by phone at the resident's request. The call was forwarded to a voice recording at mailbox 3421 indicated to please leave a message. The surveyor then went to the second floor secured unit, and observed the resident phone at the nurses station was not plugged into the wall jack. The Field manager made a second attempt to call Resident #6, and was informed that Resident #6 resided on the secured unit, the residents did not have their own phones, and the call would be put through to the unit. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #577 answered the phone, and called for Resident #6 down the hallway. LPN #577 did not give him the phone but instead asked the Field Manager her name, revealing she was screening his calls. The resident phone was removed from the nurse's station and was placed in the common dining room for Resident #6 to receive the call from the Field Manager. During this conversation on 05/12/21 at 10:33 A.M. the Field Manager could hear multiple voices in the background loud enough to suggest they were in close proximity to Resident #6 while he was on the phone. The resident said the line was being monitored and staff were always nearby, so he could not talk privately on the phone. During interview with Resident #6 on 05/12/21 at 10:42 A.M. he emphasized wanting to eliminate significant reprisal as he had experience in the past at the facility. He said he was placed on the secured behavior unit against his will, had no online access, had no cell phone access, and was limited to two 15 minute calls per day. This caused him a tremendous psychological, emotional, and intellectual impact. He implied he was threatened with a 30 day discharge notice based on trumped up facts. His goal was to be moved to an unsecured unit. During interview with the Ombudsman on 05/10/21 at 5:25 P.M. he reported the resident phone on the secured unit now had a two 15 minute calls rule and that was put in place because of Resident #6. He said Resident #6 had been accused of taking the resident phone but it was later found in the nurses station. The Ombudsman indicated he has tried calling in to the unit on the resident line but gets disconnected. He was able to get through on that line about once in every 50 calls he's made to the unit. He questioned if the phone was disconnected when it was not in use. The Ombudsman reported the facility to be over the top unreasonable related to Resident #6 and violations of resident rights. Interview with Ombudsman again on 05/17/21 at 1:05 P.M. reported he had had conversations with the director of Social Service (SS) #670 but got nowhere related to protecting Resident #6's rights or moving off of the secured unit and was told it was Resident #6's perception of restriction. Interview with Resident #6's friend/power of attorney on 05/10/21 at 6:33 A.M. revealed he has known the resident for 40 years. He agreed Resident #6 had psychological concerns but they were not to the extent of needing placement on a secured unit. The resident expressed to him that he was unhappy with his placement. He was not in agreement with the reasons for the placement or for restricting his communications indicating it was for punishment. He reported he's wanted to take the resident out for dinner like he had in the past, but was told the resident was not allowed to leave the facility. He indicated taking Resident #6's phone away was a violation of his rights to communication. Interview with LPN #597 on 05/17/21 at 1:35 P.M. revealed there were no reasons to indicate why Resident #6 remained on the second floor secured unit. LPN #597 indicated it appeared the facility management did not like him and he was placed as a punishment. They don't like his independence with making appointments but he always put the appointment on paper with date and time and who with. He preferred to see his own psychiatrist but they told him he had to see facility psychologist but he did not want to see this psychologist so they held his psychiatric appointments. They singled him out for everything. He stands up for himself and will let you know the rules or the specific code the rule came from. She cited a couple of examples of the nurse LPN #592 being cruel to him. She reported one evening she came on her shift and a resident wanted to use the phone. She, nor the STNA, could find the phone, but later found the phone in the staff bathroom trash can. The STNA took a picture of the phone and sent it to the day shift nurse and aide asking why it was in the trash. LPN #597 said the texts were shared with her by the STNA. The text indicated the phone was hidden from Resident #6 because he monopolized the phone. She reported he only called a friend and the ombudsman which was his right. Then she reviewed the documentation and the resident was blamed. She said this was fraudulent documentation. She reported this to the former director of nursing. The two 15 minute calls were initiated only a few months ago and they listen in earshot of the conversation and magically knew who he was speaking with and what was said. LPN #597 admitted Resident #6 perseverated and was persistent but said it was not without cause. Review of the policy and procedure titled secured unit (behavior) dated December 2017 indicated to reside on the secured unit at least one of the following criteria must be met: have a mental health diagnosis or condition that would benefit from being in a smaller unit that allowed for increased staff intervention and supervision because of the physical layout, identified as unsafe to be outside the facility without supervision or a history of self-harm, aggressive behaviors that increase the potential for harm to self or others and a resident who chooses to be on the unit. This would be assessed upon admission, routinely and upon a significant change to determine if they met the criteria. The resident would be notified of the benefits of the unit and given a description of the layout. The physician would be notified for approval. A nurse may move a resident to the secure unit per nursing judgement if it was felt a resident was at risk for self-harm and other interventions were not effective. Once on the unit, they would be reviewed by the director of nursing or the interdisciplinary team to determine appropriate continued placement. Review of the undated document titled secured unit rules indicated no phones were to be used during meal times, as well as two 15 minute calls limit on house phone between 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility did not ensure nursing staff administered medications within the acceptable parameters of time. This affected three (Residents #6, #2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility did not ensure nursing staff administered medications within the acceptable parameters of time. This affected three (Residents #6, #24, and #76) of seven residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Review of the medication administration audit reports revealed Resident #6 received 190 doses of routinely scheduled doses of anti-anxiety, anti-flatulence and laxative medications beyond 60 minutes after the physician ordered times. There was evidence the resident received two doses of anti-anxiety medications at the same time on seven days, anti-flatulence medications on seven days and laxative medications on five days since 04/01/21. Review of the medication administration audit reports revealed Resident #24 received 167 doses of routinely scheduled doses of anticholinergic medication, three antipsychotic medications and phenyltriazine medications beyond 60 minutes after the physician ordered times. Review of the medication administration audit reports revealed Resident #76 received 73 routinely scheduled doses of two types of anti-convulsant medications and anti-psychotic medications beyond 60 minutes after the physician ordered times. Interview with Resident #6 on 05/10/21 at 3:50 P.M. revealed he was not receiving his medications as ordered and this caused him anxiety. Further interview with Resident #6 on 05/19/21 at 1:05 P.M. revealed he took multiple bed time medications including medications for sleeping. He said there was a timing problem and he got some of his medications around 8:00 P.M. and the others at 10:00 P.M. where they had to wake him up to give him medications. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #597 on 05/17/21 at 1:35 P.M. revealed day shift medications were not administered at the proper times and the resident's complained about this. Interview with LPN #592 on 05/19/21 at 1:00 P.M. revealed the director of nursing talked to him for not documenting medications as they were being administered. LPN #592 admitted to administering medications late if the unit was chaotic. Interview with the director of nursing on 05/19/21 at 2:30 P.M. revealed he was not aware medications were administered late and said it was probably just a documentation problem. Review of the administration and documentation of medications policy, revised January 2020, indicated to document immediately following the administration of medication on the medication administration record. Medications may be given up to 60 minutes before or after the designated administration time unless ordered at specific times. Medications given greater than 30 minutes outside a specified administration time must have the actual time documented. If medications were given outside of the scheduled administration times, the physician would be notified and every effort made to return to the established schedule. Nurses were responsible for the proper administration of all medications scheduled during their shifts.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of manufacturer's guidelines on insulin storage, the facility failed to ensure multi-dose insulin vials were dated with the date they were opened. This affe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of manufacturer's guidelines on insulin storage, the facility failed to ensure multi-dose insulin vials were dated with the date they were opened. This affected two (Residents #42 and #90) of three residents reviewed for insulin administration. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Observation on 05/19/21 at 2:30 P.M. of the the front medication cart on the one East Wing of the facility revealed an insulin vial for Resident #42 and an insulin injection pen for Resident #90 that were not dated with the date these insulins were opened. Another insulin injection pen that did not have a resident's name on it was also opened and not dated with the date it was first opened. Observation of the back cart on the East Wing revealed a lantus insulin pen which did not have a resident's name on it, and was also not dated with the date it was opened. Interview on 05/19/21 at 3:00 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse #587 verified the above insulins were not dated. Review of the facility policy titled Administration and Documentation of Medications, dated 01/2020, revealed insulin once opened must be dated. Review of manufacturer's guidelines for both the insulin injection pens and the multi dose vial insulin revealed these insulins were only good after being opened for 28 days.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore face mask per guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This had the potential t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore face mask per guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This had the potential to affect all 37 residents (Residents #4, #8, #11, #13, #16, #18, #24, #25, #29, #34, #35, #37, #40, #44, #45, #46, #65, #70, #74, #77, #78, #86, #97, #100, #104, #107, #110, #114, #116, #118, #119, #123, #124, #125, #129, #137, and #139) who resided on the third floor secured unit. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: Observation on 05/18/21 at 11:15 A.M., upon coming onto the third floor secured unit from the elevator walking toward the nurses station, the surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #575 leaving the dining room, not wearing a facemask, and stop at the nurse's cart. The surveyor also observed State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #540 sitting in a chair behind the mobile computer, next to the nurse's cart, face mask pulled down under chin, eating a bag of potato chips. LPN #575 then asked STNA #540 to pull up her mask. Interview on 05/18/21 at 11:18 A.M. with LPN #575 confirmed these observations. LPN #575 said all the residents were vaccinated, and the staff were told if they were vaccinated, they didn't have to wear a mask. LPN #575 said she wasn't in contact with any of the residents in the dining room and STNA #540 wasn't in contact with any residents either. Interview on 05/19/21 at 2:25 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed it was the expectation for staff to wear a face mask at all times. Review of the CDC guidance titled Infection Control after Vaccination updated 04/27/2021 revealed in general, fully vaccinated healthcare personnel (HCP) should continue to wear source control while at work. Recommendations for use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by HCP remain unchanged.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the second floor dining room chairs in good condition. This had the potential to affect all 19 (Residents #2, #6, #17, #26, #32, #50...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the second floor dining room chairs in good condition. This had the potential to affect all 19 (Residents #2, #6, #17, #26, #32, #50, #52, #54, #55, #59, #66, #68, #71, #76, #81, #88, #177, #124, and #133) residents residing on the second floor secured behavioral unit. The facility census was 141 residents. Findings include: On 05/10/21 at 12:37 P.M. dining services were observed in the second floor secured behavioral unit. All 19 residents (Residents #2, #6, #17, #26, #32, #50, #52, #54, #55, #59, #66, #68, #71, #76, #81, #88, #177, #124, and #133) ate in the dining room. The dining room chairs were observed to have padded arms that were split, with multiple chairs having the foam exposed rendering them from being cleaned properly. There were three high back vinyl chair where the finish on the wood arms was completely worn off and the seats were split with the foam exposed. On 05/11/21 at 9:49 A.M., Resident #25's room was observed, which had 15 tiles that had imbedded black scuff marks. A wardrobe had been placed in the room, covering the remainder of the blackened areas. The resident had a facility chair in his room that had a T-shirt coving the seat. The seat and the arms of the chair were split. Observations on 05/17/21 at 9:03 A.M. revealed Resident #25's floor remained scuffed. Observations of the second floor secured behavioral unit on 05/18/21 at 7:44 A.M. revealed many of the chairs had been replaced with new chairs however 10 dining room chairs remained in use that were in poor condition with ripped and split vinyl. Additionally there were five dining room chairs stacked in the solarium that had ripped and torn padded arms with the foam exposed, and one was missing the padded arm pieces all together. The three high back vinyl chairs with the worn wooden arms remained in the dining room in the same condition. Interview with Maintenance Director #659 on 05/11/21 at 9:49 A.M. confirmed the blackened areas on the floor and the condition of the chair in Resident #25's room. He reported the black areas must have been from the floor machine. He said he would have the floors stripped to try and remove the markings.
Dec 2019 15 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the medical record, facility policy and procedure, and interviews with staff, Physician #397 and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the medical record, facility policy and procedure, and interviews with staff, Physician #397 and Psychiatrist #398, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #152) who was diagnosed with mental disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder received appropriate care, treatment and interventions to meet the resident's individual needs. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy that was actual harm when Resident #152, who was known to inflict personal injury, opened a previously self-inflicted wound with an electrical cord, made multiple self-harming body cuts, threatened to harm others and had suicidal ideation without appropriate action by the facility. On 11/21/19 at 5:30 P.M. the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Quality Assurance Nurse #396 were notified the Immediate Jeopardy began on 11/03/19 at 6:24 P.M. when the facility was notified Resident #152 was found in her room bleeding from a previous self-cutting wrist wound that she had re- opened with an electrical cord. Resident #152 voiced multiple desires to commit suicide and harm self or others and had multiple incidents of self-cutting and aggressive behaviors and was not provided appropriate supervision, psychological services or interventions to guard against and treat the behavior. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 11/25/19 when the facility implemented the following corrective action: • On 11/21/19 Resident #152 was assessed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #294 at 2:30 P.M.; one on one was immediately initiated with escalation of the resident's behavior. The physician was notified of the behaviors at 2:30 P.M. and Resident #152 was sent to the emergency room for a behavioral assessment at 3:29 P.M. • On 11/21/19, a pink slip (emergent discharge) was obtained at 6:07 P.M. Resident #152 was transferred to a behavioral health facility at 10:45 P.M. upon return from the emergency room. • On 11/21/19, all residents with diagnoses of suicidal ideations and self-harm were identified, care plans were reviewed, and interventions were updated by the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) coordinator/designee. • On 11/21/19, a list of residents with a history of suicidal ideations and self-harm was placed at all nurse's stations. The lists will be reviewed and updated with all new admissions or changes of condition. Placement of list will be monitored daily by DON/or their designee. • On 11/21/19, all residents with indications or signs and symptoms of behavior escalation or who exhibit spontaneous self-harm or suicidal ideations will be immediately placed on some form of one on one monitoring including distant one on one due to various anxiety disorders to prevent further escalation or behavior. • On 11/21/19 by 9:30 P.M., all staff were educated by phone or in person on suicidal ideations and self-harm guidance by DON/or their designee. • The Executive Director will conduct an audit of all referrals with suicidal ideations or self-harm behaviors. Results of the audit will be reviewed in monthly during the quality assessment and assurance meetings for trends and further guidance beginning 11/21/19. • Beginning 11/21/19 the DON/designee will conduct staff questionnaires on what to do if residents exhibit suicidal ideations and self-harm. Questionnaires will be completed daily for two weeks, then five times a week for two weeks, then three times a week for two weeks. Results of the questionnaire will be reviewed in quality assessment and assurance meetings. • On 11/25/19, by 11:00 A.M. all staff were educated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #357, Human Resources #360 and Staff Development Coordinator #372 on the procedure when a resident exhibits self-harming behavior. • On 11/25/19, observations from 3:50 to 4:02 P.M. confirmed the list of residents with a history of suicidal ideations and self-harm was posted at the nurse stations. • Interviews on 11/25/19 at 11:55 A.M. with LPN #288 and at 12:03 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #237 verified education was completed. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 11/25/19, the facility remained out of compliance at Severity Level 2 (No actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility was in the process of implementing behavior interventions/suicide precautions for Resident #152 and other residents at risk, implementing new policies and procedures for recognizing suicidal or self-harm behaviors, completing audits on all referrals with suicidal ideations and completing staff questionnaires on recognizing resident with self-harming or suicidal ideations. Findings include: Resident #152 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] following a hospital admission for self-harm and suicidal ideation. Diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, suicidal ideations, laceration of left wrist and borderline personality disorder. Resident #152's five day Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed cognitive skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired; little interest or pleasure in doing things; felt or appeared down, depressed, or hopeless; felt tired or had little energy; had a poor appetite; felt bad about self, was a failure, or has let self or family down. Resident #152 was short tempered and easily annoyed, and stated that life was not worth living, had wishes for death or attempted to harm self. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/03/19 at 6:24 P.M., authored by LPN #294 revealed the receptionist stated a friend of Resident #152 called to say Resident #152 had cut herself again. LPN #294 and two other nurses entered the room and observed the resident lying on her side in bed using the cell phone. Resident #152 was asked to let them see her arm and she refused. After 15 to 20 minutes, she showed the nurses her arm, and the bandage was not on a previous self-inflicted wound. The area had been re-opened and bleeding was observed. The nurses cleansed the resident's arm and applied a bandage. Resident #152 stated she used an electrical cord to open the wound. The progress note indicated staff remained in the room offering emotional support and would continue to monitor. Resident #152's medical record contained no evidence of monitoring measures related to Resident #152's self-harming behavior. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/05/19 at 1:38 A.M. revealed the resident remained in her room, refusing meals, refusing medications, and assistance with activities of daily living. Resident #152 was verbally aggressive with staff and accused staff of wrong doings. All attempts to get the resident to be compliant failed and the staff reassured Resident #152 of her safety and their willingness to assist her. Per the progress note Resident #152 was in her room at this time and the staff would continue to monitor. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/05/19 at 6:28 A.M., authored by Registered Nurse (RN) #309 revealed the facility received a call from a local crisis hotline indicating Resident #152 had slit her wrist. RN #309 went to assess the resident and noted dried blood on her right inner wrist. Resident #152 refused to show the nurse and denied calling the hotline but was observed with the phone in her hand. The progress note indicated the wound appeared old, measured 1 centimeter (cm) by 0.5 cm, and was wrapped with Kerlix. The nurse manager and physician were notified. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/05/19 at 7:15 A.M., authored by RN #308, revealed the resident was calling the suicide hotline all night long, and peeled off an old scar on the ventral right wrist, measuring 4.0 cm long, 1.0 cm wide, and 0.1 cm deep. The wound had some fluid drainage. The progress note indicated staff wound continue to monitor. The medical record contained no evidence of monitoring the resident to ensure safety or providing additional psychosocial support related to self-harming behavior. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/05/19 at 12:14 P.M., authored by LPN #285 revealed staff went in the resident's room to assist her when she turned her call light on. Resident #152 started yelling that she wanted to leave and to leave her alone. The resident threw herself on the floor, started banging her head on the floor, punching the dresser, kicked the wheelchair over and attempted to pull the television down on herself. Resident #152 stated she was cutting herself because she wants to kill herself. Resident #152 had a piece of plastic that she was attempting to cut herself with. LPN #285 and the DON went in the room to speak to the resident, calm her down, and redirect her, and were unable to do so at the time. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called, and the resident was sent to the hospital. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/05/19 at 10:50 P.M. revealed the resident returned to the facility with two new orders, an antibiotic for cellulitis and potassium for low potassium. The resident seemed calm and pleasant. The note indicated the facility would continue to monitor. Resident #152's medical record contained no evidence of additional safety measures or psychosocial services related to suicidal ideations and self-harming behavior. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/08/19 at 10:39 A.M. by LPN #293 revealed the resident came towards the nurses' station and began to yell at staff. The nurses attempted to calm the resident down and while wheeling herself back to her room she yelled at another resident. Resident #152 then attempted to hit the other resident and staff were able to move the resident out of the way before physical contact was made. LPN #293 then went to calm Resident #152 down and the resident began to punch a window. The nurse pulled back the resident's wheelchair form the window and the resident attempted to hit the nurse. The nurse explained to the resident that she could hurt herself, and it was not acceptable behavior. The DON and Administrator were able to calm Resident #152 down and she was provided with education on appropriate behavior and ways to deal with emotions in a healthy manner. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/08/19 revealed the resident was seen by the physician with no new orders. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/10/19 at 5:33 P.M., authored by LPN #285 revealed STNA #221 went into the resident's room to check on her and notified the nurse that she saw blood on the resident's sheets. LPN #285 went in to see the resident. The resident hid her arms on the side of the bed and started screaming for the nurse to get out. The supervisor was called to the floor, and upon assessment the resident had scraped off the scabs on her wrists from her previous wounds. The wrists were cleaned and wrapped by the nurses. Fifteen minutes later, staff went to check on the resident and she had taken the bandages off and she had the clip from the call light in her hand. The clip was taken, and she was brought to the television area where she could be observed by staff on a one on one bases. Resident #152's medical record contained no evidence of how long she remained one on one supervision or that she was assessed to determine the risk of harming herself further. Interview on 11/21/19 at 12:38 P.M. with the DON confirmed there was no evidence of the duration of her one on one observation or additional safety measures put into place on 11/10/19. The DON revealed the facility started seeking alternative placements for the resident on 11/08/19. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/14/19 at 10:13 A.M., authored by LPN #285 revealed the resident was in the dining room for breakfast in the morning. Staff walked into the dining room and the resident started screaming at staff to get the (expletive) away from her and stop talking about her and calling her names. Resident #152 started yelling that she was going to kill a staff member. Other residents told Resident #152 to be quiet, and she yelled at them to shut the (expletive) up or she would kill them too. Resident #57 and Resident #7 went to the nurse stating Resident #152 should not be around them and they did not feel safe. At this time, therapy went to get Resident #152 and took several minutes to calm the resident down to go to therapy. When therapy brought Resident #152 back, the therapist reported that the resident kept saying she was going to hurt someone or herself. Resident #152 stated she wanted to kill someone, and the nurse attempted to talk to the resident and the resident would not listen. Resident #152 requested to speak to the administrator and said that she wanted to leave. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/14/19 at 5:33 P.M., authored by RN #302 revealed the resident was totally out of control. Resident #152 threw a tray in the dining room at another resident, was yelling foul language at residents, and showing her fist to other residents. Resident #152 threw a chair on the floor, punched a computer, and was not redirectable. A call was placed to the psychiatrist regarding transfer out of the facility to another facility, but the facility they wanted to transfer her to declined the resident's admission. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/14/19 at 11:00 P.M., authored by LPN #286, revealed the resident believed she was leaving the facility on this day, and stated if she was not allowed to leave, she would find a way to commit suicide. Resident #152 became more agitated and was screaming. Resident #152 was sent to the hospital emergency department at 10:23 P.M. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/15/19 at 11:18 A.M. revealed she returned to the facility and the facility would continue to monitor her. The medical record contained no evidence the resident was monitored more closely or was provided psychosocial services related to self-harming behavior. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/17/19 at 1:12 A.M. revealed the nurse was called to the resident's room by STNA #240 at 1:00 A.M. STNA #240 stated it appeared the resident was attempting to harm herself. The nurse entered the room and the resident was sitting in a wheelchair hiding her left arm behind her. Droplets of blood were noted on floor beneath the wheelchair, and the skin to her left wrist was observed to be open. Resident #152 refused to identify the object used to cause the injury and no objects were visible for staff to identify. Staff remained one on one with the resident and she was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/17/19 at 10:57 A.M., authored by LPN #294 revealed the resident returned to the facility. Staff reported she did not want to return to the facility and would continue to cut herself. The medical record contained no evidence the resident was monitored more closely upon her return or was provided psychosocial services related to wanting to harm self. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/17/19 at 6:31 P.M., authored by LPN #294 revealed the resident was lying in bed, refused meals, and stated she cut herself again, and asked the nurse not to tell anyone. The previous arm wound was reopened, and dried blood was observed around wound. The resident refused to have the wound cleaned and wrapped and stated, I'm not done yet. Resident #152 was re-educated regarding keeping the wound clean and wrapped. The progress note indicated the staff would continue to monitor. The medical record contained no evidence of what monitoring measures were in place or that the physician was notified. Review of Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/18/19 at 2:17 A.M., authored by RN #308 revealed at 1:00 A.M. the resident was assisted to her wheelchair and stated she would like to be discharged . When told she would not be discharged at this time, she stated she was going to kill herself. The progress note stated Non-emergency police were invited to help calm her down, which was ineffective. Resident #152 was sent to the hospital. Resident #152's general progress note dated 11/18/19 at 2:47 A.M., revealed the resident returned from the hospital with no new orders and they would continue to monitor her. The medical record contained no evidence of what monitoring measures were in place or additional psychosocial services provided. Interview on 11/21/19 at 11:23 A.M. with Resident #152 revealed she tried to kill herself and she pointed to a bandage on her right wrist. Resident #152 stated State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #200 was evil when she was first admitted , by stating get you're (expletive) up and you can walk. Resident #152 revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #281 agreed with STNA #200 so it got worse. Resident #152 revealed when STNA #200 worked the next time the STNA stated get you're (expletive) up and I do not give a (expletive) what you think or care who knows. Resident #152 revealed she started crying and she has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Resident #152 stated when STNA #200 left, that is when she tried to commit suicide because everyone has abused her in her past. Resident #152 revealed she asked the facility for counseling and they said no, and the staff say they do not have time. Resident #152 revealed she tried calling the crisis hotline to talk to someone at one point, so she would not try and hurt herself, and the hotline called the facility. In addition to the right wrist bandage, Resident #152 was observed with scars on her neck and left wrist from previous wounds. Interview on 11/21/19 at 12:38 P.M. with the DON revealed Resident #152 was accepted at a behavioral health facility on 11/20/19, but the resident declined to go, and started to come out of her room more around this time. Quality Assurance Nurse #396 revealed the staff on the floor were trained on how to respond to the resident's behavior. The DON indicated Resident #152 needed a behavior modification plan, but it was difficult if she did not agree. Quality Assurance Nurse #396 revealed when Resident #152 comes back to the facility from the hospital, her behaviors are subdued, and the facility continues to monitor her. Interviews on 11/21/19 between 12:28 P.M. and 5:15P.M. were completed with the DON and Quality Assurance Nurse #396. At 12:28 P.M. the interview revealed after Resident #152 harmed herself on 11/03/19 they took the electrical cords away, and she was checked on every two hours. Additional information from the interview, at 12:28 P.M. revealed after Resident #152 opened a previous wound on 11/05/19 at 6:28 A.M. The nurses tried to calm the resident down and divert her attention. The DON revealed they did not increase supervision for the resident because she did not like someone constantly with her; they were able to walk past her room and observe what she was doing. The DON indicated the resident did not disclose what she used to cut herself, but her room was searched without finding anything. The DON revealed the resident eventually disclosed using a plastic piece from the cap of a needle to cut herself. The DON revealed the resident was supposed to see the psychiatrist on 11/05/19, but because she was hospitalized , she was not seen. The DON stated the psychiatrist did not see Resident #152 until 11/11/19. The interview confirmed the unit manager and nurse practitioner were notified of Resident #152's self- harming behavior on 11/17/19 although it was not documented. Interview on 11/21/19 at 2:53 P.M. with the DON revealed Resident #152 was not offered counseling services, as counseling services were stopped on the resident's floor. Interview on 11/21/19 at 4:54 P.M. with Physician #397 revealed Resident #152 has been sent to the emergency room multiple times and they keep sending her back. Physician #397 revealed when a resident cuts themselves they are usually always sent out. Physician #397 revealed the hospital gives the facility the clear that they can come back, as the resident does not have any psychiatric issue that needed to be addressed. Interview on 11/21/19 at 5:15 P.M. with Psychiatrist #398 revealed the expectation when a resident exhibits self-harming behavior is to make medication adjustments if needed and observe the resident for safety. Review of the undated facility policy, titled Suicide Threats revealed staff shall report any resident threats of suicide immediately to the nurse supervisor/charge nurse. The nurse supervisor/charge nurse shall immediately assess the situation and notify the charge nurse/supervisor and/or DON of such threats. A staff member shall remain within view of the resident until the nurse supervisor/charge nurse arrives to evaluate the resident. After assessing the resident in more detail, the nurse supervisor/charge nurse shall notify the resident's attending physician and responsible party and shall seek further direction from the physician. All nursing personnel and other staff involved in caring for the resident shall be informed of the suicide threat and instructed to report changes in the resident's behavior immediately. As indicated, a psychiatric consultation or transfer for emergency psychiatric evaluation may be initiated. If the resident remains in the facility, staff will monitor the resident's mood and behavior and update physician accordingly, until a physician has determined that a risk of suicide does not appear to be present. Staff should monitor the resident frequently as not to increase further agitation, if the resident allows sit with the resident and provide distraction, comfort, and ensure safety. Staff shall document details of the situation objectively in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #21 and Resident #120's rooms were main...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #21 and Resident #120's rooms were maintained at a comfortable temperature. This affected two residents (#21 and #120) of 44 residents who were interviewed related to environmental concerns. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 annual comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact and independent for the majority of his personal care. Record review revealed Resident #120 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia, diabetes, dementia, psychosis, and a stroke. Review of the MDS 3.0 quarterly comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The resident was identified to be non-interviewable. On 11/18/19 at 10:38 A.M. Resident #21 and Resident #120 were observed to share a semi-private room. Observation and interview with Resident #21 on 11/18/19 at 10:38 A.M. revealed the resident was in his room sitting in his wheelchair wrapped up in blankets. The resident's room was cold. During the interview the resident shared that his heater had broken in the room on 11/15/19 and it had not been fixed yet. The resident stated he had reported this issue to staff. He stated his room sometimes gets too cold, but no one had offered to change his room or told him what they were doing to fix it. Interview with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) #373 on 11/18/19 at 12:20 P.M. revealed the temperature in Resident #21 and #120's room was 71.3 Fahrenheit at that time. MS #373 stated staff had put a maintenance request in through their electronic system on 11/16/19, however he did not see the message until the night of 11/17/19. MS #373 attempted to turn the heater on and checked a few other things which might be causing the problem. MS #373 said what he normally would have done would be to install a space heater and call their contracted heating vendor to have them come and fix the heater. A call had been placed to the contracted heating vendor and they indicated they would be out to check the heater. Interview with MS #373 on 11/19/20 at 12:00 P.M. revealed the contracted heating vendor was at the facility on 11/18/19 to look at the heater and determined a switch had been turned off under the heater which was why it was not working. Once the switch was turned back on the heater started working.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify Resident #35 or the resident's representative when the resident's personal fund account was within $200.00 of the eli...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify Resident #35 or the resident's representative when the resident's personal fund account was within $200.00 of the eligibility limit for Medicaid. This affected one resident (#35) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. Findings include: Review of the personal fund account statement for Resident #35 from 04/01/19 through 11/18/19 revealed he had received a check in the amount of $5,371.02 made out to the facility in his name. The check was dated 04/09/19. This brought the balance of his personal funds account to $5,471.02. The account balance remained at a minimum amount of $5,168.23 to a maximum amount of $6,404.07 until 11/18/19. On 11/18/19, a care cost payment of $4,000.00 was withdrawn from this account bringing the balance to $1,168.23. An interview on 11/20/19 at 1:10 P.M. with [NAME] President of Financial Management #400 revealed a notice should have been issued when the balance of Resident #35's account was within $200.00 of the maximum amount allowed. She stated, the facility would start to look at spending down money from an account with a balance of approximately $1,800.00. Review of the Resident Personal Funds policy dated 04/01/18 revealed accumulations above $2,000.00 may get the resident removed from Medicaid until the money was spent down.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide Resident #352 personal privacy while performing...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide Resident #352 personal privacy while performing tracheostomy care. This affected one resident (#352) of one resident reviewed for tracheostomy care. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #352 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, a tracheostomy (a surgically implanted tube in the throat to allow a person to breathe), pneumonia, a gastrostomy (a surgically implanted device to provide nutrition) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Tracheostomy (trach) care was observed on 11/20/19 at 11:35 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #290. LPN #290 entered the room and explained to Resident #352 she was going to do his trach care then proceeded to set up her equipment. The door to the resident's room was open and the privacy curtain was not pulled to prevent people in the hallway from observing care. LPN #290 performed the entire procedure in full view of people walking in the hallway. Interview with LPN #290 on 11/20/19 at 12:00 P.M. confirmed she did not shut the door to Resident #352's room or pull the privacy curtain while she performed trach care. LPN #290 said she should have closed the door and pulled the curtain to provide the resident privacy during the care.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #124 was free from misappropriation....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #124 was free from misappropriation. This affected one resident (#124) of one resident reviewed for misappropriation of property. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #124 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/17/19 revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), dated 11/03/19 revealed an allegation of misappropriation involving Resident ##124. The SRI revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #401 had two of Resident #124's credit cards in her purse. On 11/20/19 4:10 P.M. interview with the Administrator revealed STNA #401 had been terminated for misappropriation of resident property after she had been found with Resident #124's credit cards in her possession. Review of the personnel file for STNA #401 revealed the employee was hired on 04/01/18 and terminated on 11/07/19. Review of the Record Corrective Action for the STNA revealed resident credit cards were found in STNA #401's purse while the nurse was checking to find identification in a lost purse. Resident #124 was interviewed and he did not give permission for the STNA to have his credit cards. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy , dated 11/2018 revealed the facility was to prevent the abuse, mistreatment, or neglect or residents or the misappropriation of their property.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a timely Preadmission Screening/ Resident Review (PAS/RR) ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a timely Preadmission Screening/ Resident Review (PAS/RR) assessment was completed at the time of the 30 day Hospital Exemption for Resident #146. This affected one resident (#146) of one resident reviewed for PAS/RR screening. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #146 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including Down Syndrome. Record review revealed Resident #146 was admitted with a Hospital Exemption from Preadmission Screening Notification screen (Job and Family Services Form (JFS) 07000). This screen was completed by the discharging hospital and indicated Resident #146 required fewer than 30 days of nursing facility services. The JFS 07000 form stated the facility accepted responsibility for requesting a resident review (if required) prior to the 30th day following admission from the hospital. Resident #146's record review and electronic record review were silent as to a resident review secondary to Resident #146 requiring longer than a 30 day length of stay in the facility. Interview on 11/20/19 at 9:50 A.M. with Social Services Designee (SSD) #395 confirmed an initial screen upon Resident #146's expiration of her 30 day Hospital Exemption screen was not completed as required.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #125, who required staff assistance for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #125, who required staff assistance for personal care received adequate and timely assistance with personal hygiene including shaving. This affected one resident (#125) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, muscle weakness, and chronic pain. Resident #125's five day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognition was intact and she required extensive two person assistance with personal hygiene. Review of Resident #125's medical record revealed no evidence the resident declined assistance with shaving facial hair. Observation on 11/18/19 at 2:19 P.M. revealed Resident #125 had facial hair on her upper lip and chin. Interview with Resident #125 at the time of the observation revealed her son used to shave her, but he does not come as often, and the facility staff had not been shaving her. Observation on 11/19/19 at 1:20 P.M. revealed Resident #125's facial hair remained as observed on 11/18/19. Interview on 11/21/19 at 9:57 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #250 and STNA #256 revealed Resident #125 should be shaved on shower days on afternoon shift and as needed. Observation on 11/21/19 at 9:57 A.M. with STNA #256 present revealed Resident #125 still had facial hair. Resident #125 told STNA #256 the staff do not shave her, and was agreeable to him shaving her. STNA #256 at this time confirmed the resident had facial hair present.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #120 and Resident #131 were served the right portion size of pureed cabbage casserole. This affected two reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #120 and Resident #131 were served the right portion size of pureed cabbage casserole. This affected two residents (#120 and #131) of four residents reviewed for pureed meal service. Findings include: Review of the Portion Control Chart revealed a number 16 scoop size was 1/4 cup and a number eight scoop size was 1/2 a cup. Review of the lunch Menu Extension spreadsheet for 11/18/19 revealed residents on a pureed diet should be served pureed stuffed cabbage casserole with a number eight scoop. Observation on 11/18/19 at 12:15 P.M. revealed Resident #120 and Resident #131 were served a pureed lunch in the dining room. Observation on 11/18/19 at 12:17 P.M. with [NAME] #382 revealed the cook served Resident #120 and Resident #131 a pureed diet stuffed cabbage casserole using a number 16 scoop (1/4 cup) instead of the required number eight scoop (1/2 cup) identified on the menu spreadsheet. [NAME] #382 confirmed this was not the correct serving size and revealed Resident #120 and Resident #131 were all served with the incorrect size before surveyor intervention.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0840 (Tag F0840)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #74 received timely assistance in scheduling an ear,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #74 received timely assistance in scheduling an ear, nose, and throat specialist appointment. This affected one resident (#74) of two residents reviewed for vision and hearing. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, bipolar disorder and unspecified ear tinnitus. Interview on 11/18/19 at 2:40 P.M. with Resident #74 revealed she told facility staff she was dealing with dizziness. Resident #74 revealed before she was admitted her doctor said she had water in her ears and if it did not get better she would have to get tubes in her ears. Resident #74 revealed when she gets up and raises her head, the room spins. Resident #74 revealed the facility said they would get her in to see a doctor as she has been reporting these symptoms since admission. Record review revealed Resident #74's physician orders included an order for an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist consult for dizziness on 09/16/19. Review of an undated Appointment Communication form revealed the form was filled out that Resident #74 needed an appointment for an ENT as soon as possible due to fluid in ears and dizziness. The date of 11/19/19 at 1:45 P.M. was handwritten on the form. Review of a Notification of Doctor Appointment form revealed Resident #74 had an ENT appointment on 11/19/19 at 1:45 P.M. Interview on 11/21/19 at 10:49 A.M. with Scheduler #369 revealed about three weeks ago she was notified that Resident #74 needed to see a ENT.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation on 11/18/19 at 9:13 A.M. of Resident #149's room revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #249 was in the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation on 11/18/19 at 9:13 A.M. of Resident #149's room revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #249 was in the resident's room with a bag in his hand. Dirty towels were observed on the floor beside the resident's bed. STNA #249 took a clean towel and picked up the dirty towels off the floor and then proceeded to take them to the soiled linen room down the hall. The STNA did not place the soiled linens in a bag for transport. Interview on 11/18/19 at 9:13 A.M. with STNA #249 revealed he had just finished providing incontinence care for Resident #149 and was cleaning up the room. STNA #249 stated he always placed his dirty linens on the floor because the floor was dirty and then he would pick them up and take them to the dirty laundry room. STNA #249 verified the towels on the floor were dirty. Interview on 11/21/19 at 9:49 A.M. with the director of Nursing (DON) revealed when staff were changing a resident., no dirty laundry was to be put on the floor. It should be placed in a bag and taken to the dirty laundry room in a closed bag. Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable infection control practices for Resident #146 related to the storage of respiratory equipment and during wound care, for Resident #352 during tracheostomy care and while handling Resident #149's dirty linens to prevent the spread of infection. This affected two residents (#146 and #352) related to respiratory care, one resident (#146) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers and one resident (#149) of 33 residents observed for general infection control procedures. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #146 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses including respiratory failure, surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system, Down syndrome and pressure ulcer of sacral region. Resident #146's five day Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed her cognition was severely impaired for decision making. a. Resident #146's physician's orders dated 10/19/19 revealed she was ordered Pratropium-Albuterol solution, 0.5-2.5 (3) milligrams/3 milliliters, 3 milliliters orally four times a day for respiratory anomalies. Observation on 11/18/19 at 10:17 A.M. revealed Resident #146 was lying in bed and her aerosol mask for the Pratropium-Albuterol solution was hanging on the breathing machine, uncovered/unbagged. Observation on 11/19/19 at 1:22 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #290 revealed Resident #146's breathing mask was uncovered/unbagged. LPN #290 confirmed this observation and indicated aerosol/breathing masks should be bagged when not in use. Review of the facility policy, titled Administering Medications through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer, dated 04/2017 revealed the policy and procedure did not indicate proper storage of the breathing mask in between use. b. Resident #146's Wound/Skin Record dated 11/14/19 revealed she also had a Stage II pressure ulcer to her left heel. Review of Resident #146's physician's orders revealed on 10/25/19 she was ordered to have her left heel cleansed with normal saline, apply medihoney, then alginate, and cover with ABD pad and wrap with kerlex. Observation on 11/19/19 at 2:35 P.M. of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #357 completing Resident #146's left ankle pressure ulcer dressing change revealed she walked into the resident's room with clean gloves in her pocket, and placed the clean gloves on a dresser at the foot of Resident #146's bed. The dresser was not sanitized and a barrier was not placed in between the gloves and dresser. During the dressing change, LPN #357 applied the gloves from the dresser to apply the clean dressing to the left ankle. Interview on 11/19/19 at 2:45 P.M. with LPN #357 confirmed she placed the clean gloves on a dresser that was not clean. LPN # revealed she normally had a caddy with clean gloves in it, but did not have the caddy with her during Resident #146's dressing change. Review of the facility policy titled Dressings, Dry/Clean, revised September 2013 revealed the procedure included to establish a clean field and place the clean equipment on the clean field. After the soiled dressing was discarded and the clean dressing was prepared on a clean field, the staff should wash and dry hand thoroughly and put on clean gloves. 3. Record review revealed Resident #352 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, a tracheostomy (a surgically implanted tube in the throat to allow a person to breathe), pneumonia, a gastrostomy (a surgically implanted device to provide nutrition) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Tracheostomy (trach) care was observed on 11/20/19 at 11:35 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500. LPN #500 entered the room and explained to Resident #352 she was going to do his trach care then proceeded to set up her equipment. LPN #500 explained to the resident what she was about to do. She washed her hands, put on gloves and a face mask, then opened the kit containing the trach care supplies. LPN #500 removed the old trach dressing and disposed of it in the trash can. She then removed her gloves, washed her hands and put on clean gloves. LPN #500 then cleaned around the trach, removed the inner cannula (a tube inserted into the trach to keep the airway open) and disposed of it in the trash can. She then opened a clean inner cannula and placed it back inside the trach. LPN #500 did not wash her hands or change her gloves after cleaning the trach site. The inner cannula was reinserted using the gloves she had worn to clean the site. Interview with LPN #500 on 11/20/19 at 12:00 P.M. revealed the nurse thought it was fine as she just touched the tip of the inner with the contaminated gloves then confirmed she should have changed her gloves.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were provided a dignified dining experience and failed to ensure staff interacted with res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were provided a dignified dining experience and failed to ensure staff interacted with residents in a dignified manner. This affected four residents (#303, #56, #37 and #12) of 163 residents residing in the facility who were observed during dining and for dignity. Findings include: On 11/18/19 at 12:27 P.M. observation of the lunch meal in the third floor dining room revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #221 and STNA #200 were assisting residents to eat. Both STNAs conversed with each other but did not converse with the residents, Resident #56 and Resident #12 who they were assisting. STNA #221 stood up from the table and directed other residents in a firm voice to sit down and sit there. Resident #303 requested her meal be re-heated as it was cold. STNA #221 told Resident #303 that it would be a while, she was busy. The above findings was verified by STNA #221 at the time of the observation. On 11/18/19 at 12:38 P.M. interview with STNA #221 revealed she should not have spoken with the residents the way she had and stated she usually talked with them during dining. On 11/18/19 at 1:02 P.M. Resident #37 was observed asking Registered Nurse (RN) #357 for another plate of food. RN #357 stated to Resident #37, you already have double portions. The RN then walked away from the resident. On 11/18/19 at 1:04 P.M. interview with RN #357 revealed he was unsure how to handle a resident who wanted more food when they already received double portions. The RN stated he believed the resident probably did not need any more food. When asked about Resident #37 specifically, RN #357 stated he (RN #357) should not have handled the situation the way he did and indicated the resident had the right to receive more food. He stated, he would make a referral to the Dietitian #394. Review of the Resident Rights policy dated 04/2017 revealed the residents had the right to be treated with consideration, respect and full recognition of his or her dignity and individuality.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, interview and review of the food temperature guidelines, the facility failed to ensure food items were served at appropriate temperatures. This affected five resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interview and review of the food temperature guidelines, the facility failed to ensure food items were served at appropriate temperatures. This affected five residents (#25, #134, #106, #107 and #303) and had the potential to affect all 43 residents residing on the third floor of the facility. The facility census was 163. Findings include: 1. On 11/18/19 at 12:27 P.M. observation of the lunch meal on the third floor revealed the facility of used a food cart with one side (left) of the cart refrigerated for cold foods and the other side (right) insulated for hot foods. The lunch meal trays for five residents, Resident #25, #134, #106, #107 and #303) were observed to be on the cold side of the cart. The trays were very cold to touch resulting in the food items on the trays being cold. This was verified by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #221 at the time of the observation. There was no evidence the facility obtained new hot meal trays for these five residents but rather they were served the meal trays from the cold side of the cart. The lunch meal included vegetable lasagna with tossed salad, bread pudding, bread and beverage. On 11/18/19 beginning at 12:30 P.M. interviews with Resident #25, #134, #106, #107 and #303 revealed the lunch meal they received on this date was cold. 2. On 11/20/19 at 11:50 A.M. observation of the lunch meal revealed the plates in the kitchen were not stored under heat. On 11/20/19 at 12:15 P.M. the lunch trays in an insulted cart arrived to the 300 unit and the cart was plugged in to help maintain heating and cooling. On 11/20/19 at 12:28 P.M. a test tray of the lunch meal from the 300 unit insulated food cart revealed the roast beef temperature was 104.1 degrees Fahrenheit. Review of the food temperature guidelines dated 04/2018 revealed the facility must maintain and serve food within recommended temperatures. Hot foods should maintain a temperature of 135 degrees. Food temperatures should be checked to verify the temperature was within appropriate range. Potentially hazardous foods must be kept under temperature control. Foods that are set up ahead of serving must be maintained at the appropriate temperatures until served.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive abuse policy and procedure to ensure adequate screening systems were in place for all employees pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive abuse policy and procedure to ensure adequate screening systems were in place for all employees prior to hire. The facility failed to implement their abuse policy to ensure all employees were checked against the Nurse-Aide Registry (NAR). This affected six of 18 employees whose personnel files were reviewed (Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #281, LPN #292, Registered Nurse (RN) #370 and RN #371). In addition, the facility identified six additional nurses (LPN #298, LPN #297, LPN #293, LPN #286, RN #306 and RN #361) who had been hired since 09/10/18 who had not been checked against the nurse aide registry. This had the potential to affect all 163 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the personnel list and personnel files revealed six of 18 employees whose personnel files were reviewed had not been checked against the State NAR at the time of hire. The Administrator was hired on 08/26/19. The DON was hired on 09/16/19. LPN #292 was hired on 10/09/19. LPN #281 was hired on 10/21/19. RN #370 was hired on 09/26/19. RN #371 was hired on 10/02/19. Interview on 11/19/19 at 2:31 P.M. with Human Resource Director (HRD) #360 revealed she did not think she needed to look and the nurse aide registry for nurses. HR #360 verified she had no documented evidence the above staff had been checked against the State NAR to ensure the employee did not have a finding entered in the State NAR concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property at the time of hire. In addition, during the interview, HRD #360 revealed since 09/10/18 there had been six additional nurses (LPN #298 with a hire date of 08/20/19, LPN #297 with a hire date of 09/01/19, LPN #293 with a hire date of 09/11/19, LPN #286 with a hire date of 11/13/19, RN #306 with a hire date of 10/24/19 and RN #361 with a hire date of 09/10/18) who had been hired and who still worked at the facility who had not been checked against the nurse aide registry. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy, dated 11/2018 revealed as part of the screening process, the facility would check licensure/registry information including the Nurse Aide Registry, State Board of Nursing and other professional registries.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions to prevent contamination and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to af...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions to prevent contamination and/or food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all 163 residents who resided in the facility, as all residents consumed food by mouth. Findings include: Observation on 11/18/19 from 8:45 A.M. to 9:02 A.M. during the initial kitchen observation, with Dietary Manager (DM) #374 present revealed the following concerns: 1. There was one carton of unopened thickened dairy with a best use by date of 11/02/19. 2. The vents over the oven and stove tops had black debris on them. 3. In the dry storage room, there was a large bag of opened bread crumbs that were not closed or sealed. DM #374 confirmed these observations at the time. DM #374 revealed the hood system was cleaned every six months, and maintenance would be cleaning the vents in November 2019 at some point. 4. Observation on 11/20/19 at 8:45 A.M. of [NAME] #382 pureeing roast beef, revealed she wore gloves, and continued to touch the outside of blender with her gloved hand and then use her gloved hand to put the roast beef in the blender. [NAME] #382 confirmed this observation at this time. 5. Observation on 11/20/19 at 11:58 A.M. revealed Dietary #386 was chopping tomatoes with gloved hands. She then retrieved a bag of unopened buns, opened the bag, and handled the buns with the same gloved hands. Dietary #386 confirmed this observation at the time. 6. Observation on 11/20/19 at 1:04 P.M. with DM #374 revealed there was heavy dirt build up behind the stove, with a overturned plate on the floor, and numerous pieces of trash underneath the ovens. DM #374 confirmed this observation at the time.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #5's mattress was maintained in good repair. This affected one resident (#5) of five residents reviewed for equipment. Findin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #5's mattress was maintained in good repair. This affected one resident (#5) of five residents reviewed for equipment. Findings Include: On 11/18/19 at 3:18 P.M. an interview with Resident #5 revealed concerns that his mattress was torn on the side of the mattress. Resident #5 stated it had been torn for a long time. On 11/18/19 at 3:20 P.M. observation of Resident #5's mattress revealed it was ripped approximately two foot on the side seam of the mattress. Interview on 11/25/19 at 9:58 A.M. with Housekeeper (HK) #347 revealed each residents shower days, their mattress was to be wiped down. HK #347 revealed if a tear was noticed at that time, staff should put a work order in to maintenance for a replacement mattress. Observation on 11/25/19 at 10:00 A.M. of Resident #5's mattress revealed the mattress still had a ripped seam approximately two foot long. Interview on 11/25/19 at 10:07 A.M. with State Tested Nurses Assistant (STNA) #256 revealed linen were changed on shower days and as needed. At the time the linens were changed, staff should look to see if the mattress needed cleaned or if the mattress needed replaced. STNA #256 stated she would report any concerns to the supervisor and maintenance staff. Interview on 11/25/19 at 10:14 A.M. with STNA #221 revealed linens were changed on shower days and if the mattress was in disrepair, it should be reported to maintenance. Interview on 11/25/19 at 10:18 A.M. with Maintenance #373 verified Resident #5's mattress seam was ripped approximately two foot in length. Maintenance #373 stated if this would have been reported to him or if there would have been a work order put in to the system the mattress would have been replaced prior to this date.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
  • • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Ohio's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 54 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade D (46/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 46/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 54 deficiencies at ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 50 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation?

ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CERTUS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 165 certified beds and approximately 137 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BEREA, Ohio.

How Does Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Staff at ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 16 percentage points below the Ohio average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

ARISTOCRAT BEREA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.